These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represents the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.

 

Minutes

 

Senate Committee on Finance and Planning

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

2:30 – 4:15

238A Morrill Hall

 

Present:

 

Judith Martin (chair), David Chapman, Rachel Curtiss, Steve Fitzgerald, John Fossum, Darwin Hendel, Lincoln Kallsen, Thomas Klein, Michael Korth, Kathleen O'Brien, Kathryn Olson, Terry Roe, Michael Rollefson, Karen Seashore, Nicholas Treat, Warren Warwick, Aks Zaheer

 

Absent:

 

Jesse Andrist, Rose Blixt, Daniel Feeney, Joseph Konstan, Mikael Moseley, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Justin Revenaugh, Thomas Stinson, Michael Volna, George Wilcox, John Ziegenhagen

 

Guests:

 

none

 

[In these minutes:  (1) follow-up to the return-on-investment report; (2) six-year capital plan]

 

 

1.         Follow-Up to the Return-on-Investment (ROI) Report

 

            Professor Martin convened the meeting at 2:30 and asked that Committee members comment on the ROI study.  She said she thought the information was very interesting, but the Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss it.  [The pertinent part of the Committee's minutes recording that report and discussion are appended to these minutes.]  What does the Committee wish to do, if anything?

 

Mr. Klein pointed out that the study uses a "return on investment" analysis of University funding, which suggests a portfolio approach.  State funding to the University is one revenue stream and the focus seems to have been on trying to get the state to increase its appropriation (or at least not cut it).  The data suggest the University already receives a higher share of state funds than the average for all states; perhaps an analysis should look at other parts of the portfolio.  The strategy emphasizes getting the state to do more, which may not be viable.

 

Professor Roe said the University should look at trying to cut transactions costs for those seeking projects/grants that do not exceed a to-be-determined amount (e.g., $100,000).  He, for example, turned down a grant of $50,000 and is considering abandoning another for $19,000 because of the effort required to obtain permission for no or a lower indirect cost rate for a project that largely funds graduate student assistance.  All know that the University is very heterogeneous; as such it may be more reasonable to allow for different rules depending on the magnitude of a project and the type of research/expenditure a project proposes.  He said he did not know how many faculty make the same kind of decision but it would be useful to look at transaction costs and whether the University is proposal-friendly.  Does he sense that Minnesota's costs are higher, Professor Martin asked him?  Professor Roe said he only had subjective evidence.

 

A point he has made with the Dean of the Graduate School is that it would be useful to look at the ROI data, Professor Roe said.  Year ago a dean of the Graduate School would make presentations to a state legislative committee; he was strategic because he would try to inform legislative committee members and work and help educate them as to the nature and possible payoffs of research state funding would help to support.  He would also bring in effective faculty to address the committees.  That might be one way to address the relative decline is state support for research and graduate training.  That is not the way the University approaches the legislature now, Professor Martin observed; Professor Roe recalled that Dean Dubrow said she does not have the opportunity to speak to the legislature.  In recent years, Professor Martin said, the University has tried for a united approach and not approved a lot of different individuals or groups pleading their own case.  It need not be either/or, Professor Roe said; there is a middle ground.

 

            Professor Martin asked Professors Chapman and Zaheer if they had any knowledge about the University's transaction costs.  Professor Chapman said the University's overhead rates are comparable with those of its peers.  What troubles him, he said, is how difficult the University is to work with.  If one has a slightly off-beat proposal, or one that is in the low-to-midrange cost, the number of signatures required is discouraging—and the General Counsel's office is so risk-averse one wonders if they want anything to happen at all.  These points were made in the Faculty Consultative Committee's discussion of the University culture task force report, Professor Martin said.  This Committee can ask questions.

 

            There is a subcommittee of the College Research Associate Deans (CRAD) that is looking at research ISOs, Mr. Klein said, and Associate Dean Judith Garrard gave a presentation on its work.  In the discussion, it was suggested that sometimes within a big bureaucracy one particular point of view becomes the driver in managing and understanding the unit. The CRAD ISO discussion indicated that the F&A rate (indirect cost rate) negotiated with the federal government can be the primary focus in the administrative review of an ISO.  For another unit, compliance with the A21 circular may become the driver.  When these drivers control the administrative review they can be one dimensional and push the operations issues underground.  When this happens the symptoms (i.e., inaccurate charging of expenses, delays in reporting financial transactions, inconsistent pricing) pop up elsewhere because the root cause has not been addressed, which is "why is the ISO operating like this?"  While everyone can agree that compliance with A-21 and adhering to the negotiated rate is essential, those rather narrowly-focused drivers are not adequate to operate a productive, high-technical-quality, financially-sustainable ISO.

 

            Professor Martin said the University culture report suggests that the general operations of the place are more devoted to "keeping out of jail" than doing the job well.  Bureaucratic and regulatory costs have been increasing, and while they may keep people out of jail, they damp down creativity.  This could be a place where the deans play a role.

 

            The ROI study was done for a purpose, Professor Hendel said, and it would be helpful for the Committee to know what the thinking is now in the parts of the University that commissioned the study.  What are they thinking about?  Are they thinking about changing anything they are doing?  Has the report affected strategies?  There were statements in the report on what accounts for the changes, Mr. Klein said, such as a slip in federal research and development funding, but why does the University only have one-fourth the industry research funding that Penn State does?  Does Penn State have more Fortune 500 corporations in its neighborhood?

 

            The ROI report seems alarming, Professor Zaheer said, and the University should take steps appropriate to address something of this magnitude.  There seems to be a disconnect between the University's stated ambition to be in the top three and where the infrastructure of the University seems to be going, Professor Martin agreed. 

 

            Professor Martin said she would contact Vice President Mulcahy and Senior Vice President Cerra to tell them the Committee found the report alarming and ask what they are doing about it—and ask them to join the Committee.  More would be appropriate, Mr. Klein said; this Committee is looking to be a place to put questions in front of the broader University community and wants to be in synch with what the administration is doing—but it would like the issues raised by the ROI report examined in the next 12 months.  The Committee needs to be clear that it will revisit the report and wants to work with senior administrators in doing so.  Professor Martin said that between the ROI report and the work of the budget model subcommittee, there will be major issues rising to the surface by the fall and big questions that will need answering.  From what she can gather, she said, state funding is not the problem.  To the extent the University is making it harder to do things, exemplified by Professor Roe turning back grants because of the bureaucratic requirements, the institution's research funding could be taking a major hit.

 

            Professor Chapman said a lot of this discussion they have heard before.  It is at the point at which it is time to stop admiring the problem and do something about it.  The task forces sought to address it; is there a way the Committee can help push beyond "framing the issue" and deal with it?   To the extent the Committee can present concrete examples that are generalizable, examples that will impede the University in achieving its goals, it can help, Professor Martin said; the question is "who will fix it?" 

 

            In the case of small grants, Professor Roe suggested, they should not have to go through the same machinery as a $1-million grant.  So SPA should recognize different levels, Professor Martin concluded.  Professor Seashore said it is like the IRB process, which has finally been streamlined if one is asking non-intrusive questions "and not drawing blood."  Something similar is needed from SPA to deal with small grants under X dollars that provides fast turnaround.  She reported that she turned down a grant today because it would take too long to deal with.  The same is needed for external sales, Mr. Klein said.  This is a scale issue, Professor Martin said, and right now everything is viewed through the lens of a very complicated project.  And it is assumed they all have the same ethical issues, Professor Seashore added.  And it is assumed they all carry the same risk issues, Professor Roe commented.  There is need for appropriate oversight for projects that do have ethical and risk issues, Professor Martin said; Professor Roe pointed out that that varies by field.  How much of this is driven by Medical School issues that are long gone, Professor Seashore asked?  What happened in the Medical School has driven everything that happens in the social sciences and the University is left with a superstructure that is an impediment to everyone.  University regulations go far beyond NIH requirements, she has been told.

 

            Professor Hendel said that in thinking of fixes, there are small, moderate, and large ones possible.  But it is not clear there is any compendium of what needs to be addressed, so the situation seems overwhelming.  If the problems were organized in a different fashion, there might be clarity on how to proceed.  For example, the University's POLICIES are now very well organized. 

 

            There are subjects this Committee is interested in, Professor Martin observed, such as costs and barriers to doing research.  If this Committee and the Senate Research Committee could come together and identify problems, that might help.  Some changes have been made to make things easier (e.g., the IRB process); are there other areas where changes could be made with the IRB changes used as an example?   The Committee can point out that there are still problems in SPA that make it difficult to obtain (or accept) a grant.

 

            Vice President Mulcahy is a very reasonable person who has thought a lot about these problems, Professor Chapman said, and perhaps the Committee should invite him to a meeting and ask how it can be supportive.  He said he has the impression that when people want to exercise common sense, it is not clear who has the responsibility to decide.  Mr. Klein said, agreeing with Professors Hendel and Chapman, that there needs to be a list of the issues and problems and a priority ordering of the list.  Once there is a list, at least this Committee and anyone else who is interested in the issue could go back to it to see what is happening.  The list provides a definition of problems and who was responsible for addressing them; the Committee can develop a timeline to see how long an issue has been around—or else it will end up with what seems to be a new list of issues every few years.   Professor Martin agreed and said the Committee does not need to admire the problems any longer.

 

            There should be a distinction between impediments in the medical areas and in the rest of the University, Professor Seashore said.  As soon as someone is dealing with animals or blood, it is a different world that requires a different level of oversight.  Professor Martin agreed and said that it should be possible to carve out small grants, not necessarily by college, that would help.  And appropriate staff should be available to help people get through the process. 

 

            One problem is that bureaucracy has its own momentum, Professor Zaheer said.  The moment one gives the problem to a bureaucracy, it tries to protect itself and the system.  It is only when people responsible for research make decisions will things get lined up right. 

 

            Professor Martin asked the Committee to think about what should be sought.  She said she would invite Vice President Mulcahy to join a meeting and, with the Senate Research Committee, try to identify what can be done to push for solutions.

 

2.         Six-Year Capital Plan

 

            Professor Martin welcomed Vice President O'Brien to the meeting to review the six-year capital plan.  Vice President O'Brien noted that she had appeared before the Committee 3-4 weeks ago on this same topic and talked about the principles and the process and illustrative examples, but the discussion inadvertently omitted the numbers for the request.  She distributed copies of materials that will be presented to the Regents at their May meeting.

 

            Ms. O'Brien directed Committee members to the tables presenting the proposed capital items beginning with 2008 and going through 2013, a list that also includes projects without a date that are in planning and development.  The tables represent the University's six-year aspirations, she said, and in her experience projects that are on the six-year capital plan do get done, although not always in six years.  Three of the years included—2008, 2010, and 2012—are state capital requests for the major bonding bills.  (The University has two capital items before the legislature this year, for HEAPR funds for repairs and renovation, and funds to renovate the former Department of Health building for the biosciences.)  There are also University-funded projects for which state support is not sought.  The "in planning and development" projects are ones that may receive University, grant, or donor funding and could move into the six-year capital plan; they are far enough along in development and pre-design that they should be listed.  Vice President Pfutzenreuter previously discussed with the Committee the debt plans and this six-year capital plan is consistent with the parameters he presented.  (For those of you who wish to look at the list of projects and projected source of funding, a pdf version of the plan is attached for the electronic version of these minutes.)

 

            Vice President O'Brien next reviewed most of the projects proposed for each of the next six years.  She noted the University is requesting $80 million for HEAPR funds in all three state capital request years; on average it receives $30-40 million and is funded at about one-quarter of the level needed. 

 

            Discussion touched on a number of points in the plan.

 

--  Professor Martin asked if the $3 million for classroom renewal is what is really needed.  Mr. Fitzgerald said this item is one of three times the money will be requested, to deal with mid-range projects.  Mr. Kallsen reported that in the last biennium the University allocated significant recurring funding for upgrading technology and lifecycle issues.  Building renovations are also helping to upgrade classroom space, Mr. Fitzgerald said.  Professor Seashore inquired if, as in the past, renovations are reducing the number of classrooms or seats.  They are not at the end of that outcome, Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged, but he said that on balance they are staying even.  Once the new science classroom building is built and Folwell is renovated, they will be in much better shape. 

 

--  The University should not expect much growth in enrollment, given the demographics of the state, Professor Roe said, so with the physical capacity of the campus, there should be greater need for renovation and fewer new buildings.  It would be helpful to see a chart explaining where capital growth will occur, and for what reasons; one should expect a leveling off of demand for capital investments.  Vice President O'Brien said that if she were building the University today, she would not build 28 million gross square feet it currently has.  She suggested that student enrolment is not indicative of space needs or the kind of space the University needs.  When they look at renovating buildings, they look at what programs could be accommodated and how adaptable the space is.  Some buildings can be made to work; some need to be demolished   For example, parts of the Physics building were built at different times and it would be difficult to rehab, and IT has indicated it needs very different space for Physics, so it will need a new building.  Capital needs will not go down, she said because there are changes in technology, research, and pedagogy—and 70% of the buildings on the Twin Cities campus are over 30 years old.

 

--  Is there an overall plan, Professor Roe asked?  The Facilities Condition Assessment is a plan for existing buildings, Ms. O'Brien said.  The work that Associate Vice President Kvavik is doing should move the University from a 6-year plan to a 20-year plan for the space needed for the future.  If that is so, why are the proposed capital requests to the state the same amount?  Are they to be adjusted for inflation?  One should see increases, refurbishments, etc.  Is this politically cautious?  With an increase in the gross state product and the size of the state economy, one should expect to see an increase in these requests.  Vice President O'Brien said the University traditionally receives about 15% of the state bonding capacity; in the last decade the bonding bills have been just under $1 billion.  The state requests are aggressive and they seek more support; the University documents the need in terms of the state's economy and the welfare of the state. 

 

--  Professor Fossum asked about the extent to which flexibility will be included in new projects.  They think about that a lot, Mr. Kallsen said, as buildings get more expensive.  They are farther ahead on that score on the research side than on the teaching side.  There are research facilities that now can be changed fast.  The proposed science classroom building will be the first time they have thought about flexibility in pedagogy in a new facility.  From a scheduling standpoint, Mr. Fitzgerald said, it would be great if the campus could optimize technology and space (acoustics have been an issue in the past in some buildings).  Professor Fossum suggested it should be possible to obtain data to demonstrate that the increased cost of more-flexible facilities is offset by the efficiencies that can be achieved as a result.  There is expertise in Capital Projects and Project Management, Vice President O'Brien said, and architects will design what the University asks for; it simply needs to have the resolve.  Units and individuals sometimes get into a mindset about what they want instead of seeking flexibility; as an academic community, the University must stick with flexibility.

 

--  The Carlson School "repurposing" includes more research infrastructure than the school now has; the additional space will be for research and student support services.

 

--  The Phillips-Wangensteen "repurposing" would permit units in the health sciences to take the space now occupied by UMP clinics, if the UMP clinic is completed and moves out. 

 

--  Professor Martin asked what would happen if the Biological Sciences Research Facilities Authority is not approved by the legislature; would the lists change.  The President has said he is committed to the AHC being able to achieve its goals, but not at the expense of the rest of the University, Ms. O'Brien said.

 

--  Professor Korth asked if the University contribution to projects, in capital-request years, is from University funds.  The source varies by project, Ms. O'Brien said.  It may be student fees for a recreational sport facility, parking revenues for a parking facility, resident fees for a new residence hall.  In all cases, Mr. Kallsen added, the academic and business plan for facilities needs to be fleshed out and must be clear about the University contribution.  In the case of Morris, for example, the administration would want to know the impact of any new fees on the student's cost of attendance.  To the extent there is added debt, it will have been included in Vice President Pfutzenreuter's debt capacity projections.

 

            Professor Martin thanked Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Kallsen for the information.

 

            Professor Seashore reported that she had discovered that once someone is age 65 they are entitled to register for any University course for $1.  That is a well-hidden fact that some would like to see more widely known.  This is federal law, she said, and applies to everyone.  Has anyone thought about the implications if a lot of babyboomers decide they want to come back and take courses for credit?  She announced she plans to get a Ph.D. in History for the $9 it will cost.  There will be bureaucratic responses, Professor Roe promised, such as fees, space constraints, etc.  Professor Seashore said the federal law would not allow that.  If someone at 65 or greater were to enroll in enough courses, would they qualify for student health coverage, Professor Fossum asked?  Is this a new law, Professor Zaheer asked?  (It is not.)  Then why would enrollments in this category grow in the future?  Because there will be a lot of retirees who don't want to play golf, Professor Seashore responded.

 

            Professor Martin adjourned the meeting at 3:50.

 

                                                                        --  Gary Engstrand

 

University of Minnesota

 

 

* * *

 

Excerpt from the Minutes

Senate Committee on Finance and Planning

December 19, 2006

 

            Professor Martin turned to Senior Vice President Cerra to lead a discussion of preliminary reports on the return on investment in the University.

 

            Dr. Cerra explained that about a year ago the President asked him to establish a group to look at economic aspects of the University.  He set up an ad hoc group that worked on the issues; they worked with the Department of Applied Economics.  They looked first at two things (more will come later):  one, what can one say about research support at the University over a long period of time, and two, what is the public value of higher education at the University of Minnesota?

 

            Professor Pardey began by reporting that the ad hoc committee reviewed hundreds of studies of the economics of higher education and concluded that they would do more than a crude input-output study.  They were surprised by the results; their study (Professor Pardey had two graduate-student co-authors) is entitled "Long Gone Lake Wobegon?  The State of Investments in University of Minnesota Research."  "The principal finding of this report is the University of Minnesota is no longer 'above average' in a range of research funding metrics, and has not been for quite some time."

 

            The report attempted to put the University on the same footing as its peers and evaluate how it looks vis-à-vis its competitors.  Several measures they looked at got their attention.  In terms of the University's rankings on academic research and development investments in 1972 and 2004, it had slipped considerably.  The rankings were as follows (1972, 2004):

 

Total academic R&D:  19, 26

Academic R&D per capital:  20, 40

Academic R&D per dollar of gross state product:  20, 43

 

Professor Pardey emphasized that the study is not just about R&D funding trends in Minnesota or at this university, but that it also explores in some detail what "competitors" in other states and other (peer) institutions are doing, and how Minnesota measures up in comparison.

 

            They also looked at the total operating expenditures of the University from 1945 to 2004.  The budget in that period went from $151 million to about $2.2 billion in real dollars; student enrollment went from about 11,400 to about 65,500.  State and local funds as a share of the University's budget shrank from about 5.7% to about 3.6%.  There has been (since 1972) a gradual decline in University expenditures as a percentage of gross state product.

 

            Another graph depicted, for the period 1972-2004, the range and average of total academic R&D expenditures for 10 institutions used in the report of the Metrics and Measurement Task Force plus an additional three institutions Vice President Mulcahy suggested be included (all 13 are public institutions). For the period 1972 to 1991 Minnesota was above average and near the top of the range; from 1992 to 1997 Minnesota was above the average but slipping down; it was about at the average in 1998; since 1999, it has fallen below the average.  (The data come from NSF, covered all sources of income, and were very carefully compiled, Professor Pardey assured the Committee.)

 

            Professor Seashore noted that the spread between the top and bottom schools had increased significantly starting in 2001; what happened?  Vice President Mulcahy said the institutions are asking the same question; UCAL, for example, went from #9 to #1.  Is this a consequence of targeted investments in one or two areas that resulted in a big payoff, Professor Seashore asked?  Dr. Cerra suggested it may have been.  Dr. Mulcahy said that if one examines the data closely for each school, one finds a difference in the categories of revenue.  What has happened at Minnesota started awhile ago, Dr. Cerra observed.

 

            Professor Pardey said that in 1972 Minnesota was 4th in the group, crept up in the 1990s to 2nd, thereafter stalled and slowed, and is now 9th in the group of 13.  There were big shifts in the positions the institutions held during these 25 years, he said, and one must look at the data over a long period.  At the same time these changes were occurring, Dr. Cerra said, the NIH budget doubled.  Professor Konstan asked if the picture is more rosy because some schools dropped out.  The players at the top since the 1980s have been constant, Dr. Mulcahy said, but there have been dramatic changes in the lower half of the range; a number have dropped out while other institutions have appeared.  The numbers for the institutions in the lower half will be above those for Minnesota if something does not change.  There is no way to duck the trends, Dr. Cerra commented, because they are quite robust.  (The University ranks 17th nationally if both public and private institutions are included.) 

 

            Professor Pardey next reviewed a table showing the sources of funding for academic R&D for the 13 institutions in the study (federal, state/local, industry, institutionally-financed, and other).  Professor Konstan observed that the University was 4th in state/local funding in both 1972 and 2004 but that it had slipped in all other categories.

 

            Professor Pardey then reviewed two graphs illustrating the average annual growth rate by funding source and Minnesota's position vis-à-vis those growth rates.  For 1972-1990, the University was above the average in the four categories pictured (state/local, industry, institutionally-financed, federal government).  For the period 1990-2004, the University's increases in R&D funding from all sources were well below the average national average increases.  There was a dramatic shift in the two periods, he said; in the first, the University was a high-performer, especially in increases in funding from state and local sources; after that, the rate of growth from all sources declined (relative to other institutions).  (The decline in funding from industry was consistent across all institutions.)  Minnesota was unique in that it was way above average in state funding for research; now it is more like the other institutions and below par on the other measures.  The University's share of federal funding has been stable but the state/local share has dropped as a percentage of the total.

 

            The message, Professor Pardey said, is that there has been a structural shift in funding for research if one looks at the temporal relationships among the funding sources.  They also looked for lag results—one source generating additional funds from another—and could find no relationship.

 

            Vice President Mulcahy said they looked at the funding from the state and from industry to see what has happened since 1980.  Is the decline due to something the University is doing, to make it less competitive?  That could be, but there has also been a major change in the state philosophy; the DNR and other departments used to outsource their research but now they do it in-house.

 

            Professor Seashore observed, apropos the source of funding for research from industry, that while all universities saw the same trend down, Minnesota has been "on the losing end of a losing trend."  She asked if they had looked at revenues by industry and whether there is something about the University's R&D policies.  Dr. Mulcahy said they looked at the difference between Minnesota and the #3 institution in the group; the gap between the two widened in recent years.  Minnesota does one-fourth as much industry-sponsored research as Penn State, and he hears around the state that the University is very difficult to deal with.  That is changing, and the University is getting a favorable response to the changes, but the effect will take awhile to see.

 

            Professor Pardey next reviewed a graph of academic R&D spending from 1990-2004 with four lines.  One plotted actual expenditures (the lowest line); the other three plotted where Minnesota would have been if its academic R&D expenditures had tracked (1) the national average, (2) the University's growth rate in the 1980s, and (3) the University's expenditures had tracked the top peer, North Carolina.  The graph also indicated where the University's expenditures in 2004 would be if they equaled the "peer intensity" of faculty at Wisconsin, the gross-state-product intensity of Wisconsin, and the "student intensity" of Wisconsin.  In all cases, the University would be spending considerably more on research than it is.  In any one of the three scenarios, Professor Pardey said, the University would be in the top three in the group.  One major reason the University slipped was because it led the group in state support early, then stalled while other states ramped-up their expenditures.  Dr. Mulcahy said that other institutions saw more direct state support to increase research capacity (buildings, faculty), which led to increases in expenditures.  Those now on the top were not there 10 years ago, Dr. Cerra said, they got there by making large investments in research.

 

            This is about being bigger, not better, Professor Konstan said.  Are the schools growing the size of their faculty?  Growing overall?  Or is it a matter of productivity/investment mix?  A number of the institutions are growing faster than the University, Dr. Cerra said (e.g., in terms of NIH support), and the University is being raided by institutions that are making big investments.  Professor Konstan said that the University could run up its expenditures but would risk crashing on the wave; he said he was more concerned that the University sustain growth rather than get to the top fast.  These data are about total size, he repeated, and not about whether faculty here are doing worse than faculty at other institutions.  Professor Pardey did not agree.  In the full report forthcoming, he said, they also report academic R&D funding normalized by faculty and student counts and on a per capita and per gross state product basis; the University of Minnesota does comparatively poorly on all these counts.  Vice President Mulcahy said it is also difficult to get faculty ftes.  He noted a recent article reported that in anticipation of the doubling of NIH funding, universities invested in new faculty and buildings and expanded their capacity beyond a doubling of NIH funding.  He agreed that sustainability in those cases may be in question.  In terms of resources per FTE, the University has lost ground, Professor Pardey said. 

 

            The question is how to frame these results in the context of the biennial request and strategic positioning, Dr. Cerra said.  The data are consistent with what Vice President Mulcahy has reported earlier and with what the bio-business community has presented about investments in the biosciences in the last 15 years.  If the University is to do something in response to these data, it will have to make some tough decisions about investments.  There has been a lot of discussion in this Committee and in the Faculty Consultative Committee about how to frame the argument to the state, Professor Konstan said, and these data reflect a state that is stepping back from research funding. The question is how to make this an issue, because the state expects a return on its investment.  A bigger problem is federal and institutional funding, Professor Pardey said; a lot of institutions have done well because of institutional support.  The University must "own" the problem, Dr. Cerra agreed, and must ask what it is doing about it.