The provincial government is signalling postsecondary institutions to align
their research and teaching outcomes with the provincial economy. For instance, in its 2012 Alberta Research & Innovation Plan,
the ministry of Enterprise and Advanced Education notes “The alignment of Alberta
Innovates corporations and Campus Alberta brings together learning, research
and application, management and technical skills training, and new knowledge
and commercialization, into a system that will create a culture of inquiry and entrepreneurialism.
A culture that fosters the acquisition of commercial skills, financial
abilities and business acumen will enable Alberta to move from a solid economy
to a resilient, diversified knowledge-driven economy for future generations”
(p. 6). It is possible that other messages
lay not far below quotes like this one.
There is concern that universities are under pressure to favor applied
research over pure research, or to favor programs that emphasize particular
career paths over others. One
case in point is a recent column in the National
Post by Matt Gurney that argues that governments should only provide
financial aid for students taking useful programs.
The push to align enterprise with advanced education has sharpened with
recent budget cuts to postsecondary institutions and accompanying “Letters of
Expectation” from the ministry. For
example, the draft letter of expectation for the University of Alberta asks
that it allocate its resources “in ways that best achieve the following desired
outcomes:
-
Albertans are engaged in lifelong learning;
- Alberta’s workforce is skilled and productive;
- Alberta demonstrates excellence in research, innovation, and commercialization; and,
- Alberta’s economy is competitive and sustainable.”
Nonetheless, at a very general level all four of these
outcomes do not appear to conflict with the university’s role of discovering
new information, and disseminating its discoveries (and the methodologies used
to make them) to the public and to its students. In her “State of the University” address on
February 28, 2013, Dr. Indira Samarasekera, President of the University of Alberta,
pointed out that “our goal is, in fact, to do more than prepare students for
particular jobs. Our goal is to give our students the knowledge and skills they
need to think for themselves, to be creative and entrepreneurial, to seek
solutions that others have missed … to undertake today’s work in a way that
addresses tomorrow’s challenges. They must develop the very knowledge and
skills that can help them diversify and be resilient—to bring all that they
have to bear on whatever task they take up.”
I think that when I try to integrate my research with my teaching I am
playing a part in achieving this goal.
Of course, this is not the only approach undertaken by the
University of Alberta that harmonizes with the government’s desired
outcomes. In 2006, the University of
Alberta and the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation launched a joint,
not-for-profit, venture called TEC Edmonton.
Its general goal is to transition “science solutions into business
opportunities”; TEC stands for “Technology,
Entrepreneur & Commercialization”. It is the exclusive technology transfer agent
for the University of Alberta, and provides aid for U. of A. researchers and
students to explore the possibility of commercializing their research. According to TEC Edmonton’s annual report, in
2011-12 they advised 529 entrepreneurs and researchers, 70 of their clients
combined to generate $73.4 million in revenue, and 28% of their clients were
University of Alberta spinoffs. Clearly,
a significant amount of research commercialization goes on at the University of
Alberta.
However, a university
researcher faces a serious conflict because the goals of discovering and
disseminating knowledge to our colleagues, our students, and the public does
not align very well with the goal of transitioning science into business.
The cliché “publish or perish” governs knowledge discovery and
dissemination. An academic career faces
constant evaluation, and a large part of this evaluation concerns research
productivity. To receive annual merit
pay, to achieve tenure or promotion, to obtain grant funds to support future
research, university researchers must publish their results. A competitive CV requires both quantity and
quality. That is, to succeed in this
business you have to publish many papers, and they have to appear in respected
outlets. I constantly remind graduate
students that they are only as good as their next publication. I do this because ‘publish or perish’ is the
critical lesson to pass on to apprentice academics.
Long ago, though, I found that “publish or perish” is very bad
when it comes to commercializing research.
A lot of my own research involves artificial neural networks, and these
networks offer many possibilities for solving various applied classification
problems. Because of this, one of my
more entrepreneurially minded colleagues set up a meeting between the two of us
and a representative with the Industry Liaison Office, which was an ancestor of
TEC Edmonton. To my surprise, the ILO
representative was more than a little concerned about me publishing my research
in the public domain. Indeed, I left
with the strong impression that the ILO view of my job (or perhaps more
correctly, the view of how my job should be conducted if I aimed to
commercialize my discoveries) was completely opposite to my own view (expressed
in the previous paragraph).
The reason for this was straightforward: patent law. In Canada, a researcher has only a year to
patent an invention or discovery after its public disclosure. If more than a year passes, it is not
patentable. This means
that if a researcher like me wants to commercialize research, “silence is
golden”. Published research is in
the public domain, so if I publish my work – as is expected by my employers,
not to mention my government granting agencies – this places severe time
constraints on research commercialization.
The ILO’s solution seemed to require me to be silent about my research, and as a result I
never pursued its commercialization.
In short, my view is that the combination of enterprise and advanced education leads to some perplexing problems for university researchers. When I accept my salary, or when I accept government grants – public money – to conduct research, I believe that “publish or perish” is an acceptable position to be in, both in terms of lab research and course instruction. “Silence is golden” strikes me as being contrary to the goals of a public institution. It will be interesting to see how the combination of enterprise and advanced education proceeds in Alberta in the coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment