The Big Idea Fall 2019: Down to Earth

Fall 2019

DOWN TO EARTH: HAS AMERICA RETURNED FROM ITS GIANT LEAP?

In a world where Americans are consuming less and less science news, discover what NASA has done to reignite the flame of public interest.

FIRST THOUGHT

Running Smoothly:

How ACO Maintains Its Facilities

By Rene Cantu

On the southeast corner of the University of Houston campus resides one of the most highly lauded, well-run animal facilities in the country: Animal Care Operations (ACO). Particularly renowned for how efficiently it is managed and maintained, ACO recently received continued accreditation through the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) International.

“(Full accreditation) is an assurance to the granting agencies that UH not only complies with regulatory standards but also goes the extra steps to implement current practices that are required by law. This ensures that programs are continually improving in order to achieve excellence in animal care programs,” explained David Brammer, D.V.M., the executive director and chief veterinarian for Animal Care Operations.

So, exactly how does the ACO team maintain such a high level of internationally recognized safety and efficiency?

PPE is the way to be One way the ACO ensures safety is through the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE is critical to the scientific process because it allows researchers to work with minimal concerns about safety. Let’s take a closer look at PPE particularly for animal facilities.

PPE protects personnel from: • Laboratory Animal Allergies (LAA) – Dander from animals such as rodents and primates • Infectious zoonotic disease – Rabies, Herpes B, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis Q • Physical hazards – Bites, scratches, kicks, hearing loss from animal vocalization

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, there are four levels of biosafety. PPE requirements change depending upon the safety level.

BSL-1 (Minimal potential hazard) – PPE requirement: Protective gown, eyewear and gloves BSL-2 (Moderate potential hazard) – PPE requirement: Protective gown, eye and face protection, gloves and eye, face and respiratory protection (Should be used in rooms containing infected animals) BSL-3 (May cause serious or potentially lethal disease) – PPE requirement: Protective laboratory clothing with a solid front, eye and face protection, gloves and eye, face, respiratory protection BSL-4 (High individual risk transmitted infections and/ or life-threatening disease) – PPE requirement: Positive pressure suit. When this level occurs, trained responders are typically involved.

The Toyota Way Another way the ACO maintains its facilities is by implementing Toyota’s principles for efficiency.

The Toyota Production System (TPS) is based on the philosophy that the ideal manufacturing conditions are made by eliminating waste in pursuit of the most efficient methods. Kiichiro Toyoda, son of Toyota founder Sakichi Toyoda, inherited this idea, as he proclaimed that “ideal conditions for making things are created when machines, facilities and people work together to add value without generating any waste.”

The Toyota spirit of “monozukuri” (making stuff) has become known as the Toyota Way. The Toyota Way has seen its influence not just within the automotive industry, but in large facilities around the world, including animal care labs at UH. “In the spring, the entire ACO department went to tour the Toyota production facilities to see and appreciate how lean management tools are used in the 2,000,000-square-foot assembly plant,” explained Brammer.

“One idea we incorporated is posting the proper personal protective equipment needed in some areas. In collaboration with Shasta and Sasha, we now have posted in our animal facilities an image of one of our mascots in the proper protective clothing.”

During the visit to the Toyota production facilities, Brammer admired the airtight, razor-sharp efficiency with which they are managed. When asked what impressed him most, he could not choose just one thing, answering, “Standardization of processes, job tasks, materials and tools were obvious. It was also obvious that all processes were integrated and you could easily see how one station affected all other stations.

It was also impressive how the vendors remove all paper, cardboard and plastic from the assembly line, making the entire assembly line a zero-landfill facility.”

TPS practices concentrate on eliminating non-value added work and increasing efficiencies.

“This practice works regardless of size and can be scaled as the organization grows. There is no doubt that a 2,000,000-square-foot assembly plant must have a system to function. Without a system to stay organized and focus on the standardized work, there is little doubt that a coordinated effort to produce Toyota trucks could be achieved,” explained Brammer.

“We hope to incorporate some of these practices into our own facilities to reduce the waste.”

TOP OF MIND

CHANCELLOR AND PRESIDENT RENU KHATOR

PUBLISHER AMR ELNASHAI Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer

4

HOW SHOULD UNIVERSITIES VIEW CHINA?

VIEWPOINT

DIRECTOR

KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON: THE COST OF RESEARCH

LINDSAY LEWIS Division of Research

EDITOR RENE CANTU Division of Research

EDITORIAL BOARD

8

JEANNIE KEVER Media Relations

FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK

KATHY MAJOR Natural Sciences & Mathematics TONI MOONEY SMITH Liberal Arts & Social Sciences

12

MIKE ROSEN Strategic Communications

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

MIGUEL TOVAR

DIGITAL MEDIA MANAGER

TIM HOLT

PHOTOGRAPHERS

JOHN LIENHARD

WRITERS

FEATURE

DOWN TO EARTH: HAS AMERICA RETURNED FROM ITS GIANT LEAP?

RENE CANTU ERIC GERBER BRIAN HERMAN JOHN LIENHARD CLAUDIA NEUHAUSER NITIYA SPEARMAN

PROOFREADERS

ASHLEY MERWIN

WEB DEVELOPER

DARNELL THACKER

Send address and email updates to: University of Houston Division of Research 4302 University Drive, Room 316 Houston, Texas 77204-2015 Send feedback to: research@uh.edu The Big Idea is published by the Division of Research.

IS THE GRASS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE?

PERSPECTIVES

CONVERGING ON THE ANSWER 24 DISCUSSION BOARD

THE GREAT CONNECTOR

Printed on Recycled Paper The University of Houston is an EEO/AA institution.

11.2019 | 4,500 Copyright © 2019 by the University of Houston

CONTEMPLATIONS

A digital version of this publication is available at uh.edu/researchmag Cover: getty / romolo tavani/ mikiell / paul campbell / mik38

2

14

HOW MANY WINGS 32

28

FROM THE TOP

The Big Idea is no longer an experiment. It is the literary manifestation of the intellectual prowess of the UH Division of Research. We launched The Big Idea to delineate marketing researchers and their endeavors, which describes the overwhelming majority of university research magazines, from exploring the challenges facing research enterprises across the U.S. and further afield, and offering solutions or pathways to solutions.

This magazine is a forum for dialogue and a speakers’ corner. The exceptionally positive feedback that we have received is as much gratifying as it is reassuring. This feedback provides us with a readers mandate to continue our bold vision for this new type of research magazine. We breach barriers and unpack seemingly touchy subjects. We embody the notion that universities are where controversial debate should thrive without hindrance and without boundaries other than ethical and moral constructs. This is how the UH Division of Research thinks and feels. We are here to serve our community of faculty and students, and we are here to contribute to, and perhaps even lead, the intellectual march of excellence of this great university.

I invite our community and stakeholders to delve into this issue of The Big Idea, and to continue to share with us what we are doing right or wrong, and what we are doing too little or too much of.

Moreover, the magazine is also a reflection of the growth and strength of the UH Division of Research.

I share with our readership that metric-based assessment indicates that the research and technology transfer enterprise at UH is performing at all-time highs as a consequence of our deliberate strategic planning and rigorous implementation of our plans. And we are only just starting.

The number and quality of major center and center-like proposals running through our system are unprecedented and the new alliances and consortia that we have forged are a testament of both our drive and the high esteem our new and continuing partners hold us in. Our Technology Bridge is at capacity and many more potential residents are in discussion with us to acquire space at our technology transfer park. Internal optimization and integration of research groups, and planning for the launch of the College of Medicine research portfolio, are afoot and these will eventually parallel our extensive energy portfolio. With the recent major gift of $50 million to launch four world-class research and education institutes, the sky is no longer the limit for UH Research and Technology Transfer.

Amr Elnashai, FREng

Vice President/Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology Transfer University of Houston/University of Houston System

TOP OF MIND

HOW SHOULD UNIVERSITIES VIEW CHINA? Claudia Neuhauser, Ph.D.

Associate Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer, Professor of Mathematics, University of Houston

Brian Herman, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering and former Vice President for Research, University of Minnesota and University of Texas Health, San Antonio

GETTY / ENELL / MTRUCHON / WARAYAT

4

THE BIG IDEA

Free exchange of ideas created a global community of scholars We have enjoyed and benefitted from decades of relative tranquility in academia where the focus on fundamental science created a global community of scholars that came with a free and unrestrained exchange of ideas. Research thrived in this community without political borders — who researchers collaborated with was defined by expertise, not citizenship, with a few exceptions when the federal government had sanctions or embargoes against specific countries. But those were few. Today, the academy is facing the reality that knowledge discovery, even at the most fundamental level, is not immune to geopolitical power struggles.

China has been singled out as the main threat. Over the past decade or so, China has made huge strides growing its research and development (R&D) enterprise. In 2007, China invested just 1.37% of its GDP in R&D. It is now 2.13%. Still less than what the U.S. invests: 2.63% in 2007 and 2.79% in 2017.

China has surpassed the U.S. in science and engineering publications, though U.S. publications are still cited more highly. China leads in the number of patents, though lags in triadic patents and earnings from patents. While the quality may not be at the same level today, China is catching up quickly.

It was only about forty years ago when diplomatic relationships between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China commenced after almost thirty years of no diplomatic relationships with China. Back in 1978, the U.S. and China met in Beijing to discuss the exchange of scientific and technological information. The U.S. suggested a student exchange program, which the Chinese immediately embraced. Several months later, in January 1979, the first group of Chinese students, mostly physicists and mathematicians, arrived in the U.S.

Academia has been a big beneficiary of building these relations. By 2018, Chinese students made up about 30% of the more than 1.1 million international students studying in the U.S. Many Chinese students have made their home in the U.S. after graduation, and many departments, in particular in the sciences and engineering, count them as their faculty colleagues. More than 30% of publications of U.S. researchers listed in Web of Science have international collaborators today, up from less than 5% in 1978, and almost a quarter of the publications with international collaborators are with researchers in China.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

5

GETTY / TYLER FAIRBANK

Geopolitical struggles have put academia on alert Until recently, most university researchers have felt little to no impact of the urgent warnings of the federal government to protect sensitive technologies in the name of national security. This is largely because fundamental research is the mainstay of research universities, and fundamental research defined as “research in science, engineering, or mathematics, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the research community, and for which the researchers have not accepted restrictions for proprietary or national security reasons,” is excluded from export controls. Researchers who are involved with sensitive technologies are used to working with their technology transfer offices and export control offices, relying on well-established processes.

Academia, however, is not immune to the current geopolitical power struggles. Over the past year or so, federal agencies sent out a flurry of memos reminding the academic research community about requirements on reporting foreign collaborations or sources of research support. It started with the National Institutes of Health’s director sending out letters to over 10,000 organizations that receive NIH funding to remind them of the rules for disclosing foreign ties, such as foreign financial support.

Other agencies quickly followed with reminders and additional rules and requirements. In December 2018, the Department of Energy sent out a memorandum informing grantees about the prohibition of spending U.S. tax dollars to support foreign nationals in sensitive areas or those participating in foreign talent recruitment programs, such as China’s Thousand Talents program.

The Department of Defense followed with their memorandum that detailed strengthened requirements on submitting information about key personnel to allow the agency to limit undue foreign influence. Most recently, the National Science Foundation sent a Dear Colleague Letter to remind grantees of a 1978 rule to disclose all foreign and domestic support.

While the rules and regulations apply to all international collaborations, China has been the primary target of greatly increased scrutiny since November 2018 when the Justice Department initiated a program to “identify priority Chinese trade theft cases” and investigate them. This has resulted in “more than 1,000 active investigations into attempted theft of U.S. intellectual property, with nearly all involving China,” according to FBI Director Christopher Wray. These investigations involve scientists in U.S. businesses and universities. The increased attention on Chinese faculty in U.S. universities prompted the Committee of Concerned Scientists to send a letter to President Trump on June 4, 2019, to express their concern about the “government campaign” that has led to a “massive investigation of ethnic Chinese faculty throughout the country.”

6

THE BIG IDEA

Academia must adapt to a new world order As new rules and regulations are added at this quickened pace to the already complex set of requirements and a lack of specificity adds to the confusion, it becomes more and more difficult for researchers to stay on top of the requirements. University administrators must redouble their efforts to help their faculty navigate the increasingly complex landscape of international collaborations and avoid researchers feeling targeted while at the same time emphasizing the importance of ensuring that national security is not compromised by freely sharing sensitive information.

Some help may be on the way with coordinated efforts, such as the proposed Securing American Science and Technology Act (SASTA) of 2019, which is part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. If passed, SASTA would establish an interagency group and the National Academies Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable to bring clarity to security threats, coordinate efforts, share best practices, and think through long-term ramifications of proposed actions. This bi-partisan effort is strongly supported by over a hundred academic organizations and professional societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Landgrant Universities, the Council of Graduate Schools, and many research universities.

However, university administrators cannot wait for these committees to form and provide guidance. Faculty need the support and guidance from their universities now to continue their international collaborations without running afoul of federal rules and regulations.

Requirements for international research are often distributed across offices in universities: legal offices, grants and contracts offices, compliance offices, tech transfer offices, development offices, and academic affairs. To effectively translate the rules and regulations into transparent and easy to follow processes that allow researchers to be compliant without much added administrative burden, administrators across these offices must collaborate to collect all the currently available information in a single place and add new information without delay. They must develop effective ways to communicate any changes and new rules quickly through the respective channels of each of the offices and find ways to come to decisions quickly across offices that at times are at odds with each other.

Preparing for long-term consequences We do not know yet what the long-term consequences of this heightened attention of the China threat to U.S.-China relations will be. The threat of intellectual property theft is real, and universities must heed the call of FBI Director Christopher Wray to “be much more sophisticated about how others may exploit the very open collaborative research environment that we have in this country and revere in this country.” However, the long-term consequences may be harmful to the U.S. economy, and we must begin to prepare for what a post-global world might look like.

First, universities’ strategic plans have called for internationalization for years. They saw the value of increased global engagement in education and research.

Fewer academic programs and administrative structures that were put in place to support these might be needed in the future. For many universities, internationalization has also become an important source of revenue. International students studying in the U.S. contributed $39 billion and supported more than 455,000 jobs in 2017-18, according to NAFSA. If the U.S. is perceived as less welcoming to international students, this source of revenue can diminish quickly with catastrophic consequences for the revenue stream of already financially strapped institutions.

Second, the U.S. can ill afford to destroy the global trust within the science and engineering community and the welcoming environment in the U.S. for scientists and engineers across the globe that has been built over decades.

Foreign-born scientists and engineers made up about 30% of college-educated workers employed in science and engineering occupations in the U.S. in 2015. This percentage is much higher, about 45%, when we look at those with doctorate degrees. If the U.S. becomes a less hospitable place for foreign workers, this will have dire consequences for many industry sectors with no quick way to fix. It takes years to train scientists and engineers, and despite decades of efforts to prime the STEM pipeline, too few U.S. students find these fields attractive to supply the workforce with a sufficient number of domestic graduates.

GETTY / PKANCHANA OECD (2019), Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator). doi: 10.1787/d8b068b4-en (Accessed on 04 July 2019) https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-by-the-numbers/july-2018 (accessed on July 13, 2019) Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR): Title 15. Commerce and Foreign Trade. Subtitle B. Regulations to Commerce and Foreign Trade. Chapter VII. Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

Subchapter C. Export Administration Regulations. Part 734. Scope of the Export Administration Regulations. Section 734.8. “Technology” or “software” that arises during, or results from, fundamental research. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/734.8; accessed on April 14, 2019) FBI Director: China Main Culprit in Intellectual Property Theft Probes. July 23, 2019. Voanews. (https://www.voanews.com/usa/fbi-director-china-main-culprit-intellectual-property-theft-probes; accessed on July 25, 2019) Ibid.U.S. Government Profiling Ethnic Chinese Scientists. (https://concernedscientists.org/2019/07/u-s-government-profiling-ethnic-chinese-scientists/; accessed on July 22, 2019) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3038/text SASTA Support Letter to Representatives Sherrill and Gonzales. (https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Science-Security/SASTA-Letter-of-Support.pdf; accessed on July 25, 2019) FBI Director Wray on Global Threats and National Security. Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC. April 26, 2019. (https://www.c-span.org/video/?460010-1/fbi-director-christopher-wray-speaks-council-foreign-relations&start=1280; accessed on July 25, 2019) NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool. (https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool; accessed on July 25, 2019) Science & Engineering Indicators 2018. Chapter 3: Science and Engineering Labor Force. Table 3-25. (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-engineering-labor-force/immigration-and-the-s-e-workforce; accessed on July 24, 2019)

FA L L 2 0 1 9

7

VIEWPOINT

Keeping the Lights On: The Cost of Research

By Nitiya Spearman Art by Miguel Tovar

Congratulations, your proposal has been funded!

These are words that every principal investigator (PI) wants to hear. But much like the lottery, the amount that glitters on signage near freeways is not the amount the investigator will receive. When the money is set up in the PI’s project cost center, a portion of the awarded amount, which is based on the university negotiated indirect cost rate, is withheld as expenses are incurred. The question from most investigators across the university research enterprise is: why?

CINOBY/VALENTYNVOLKOV/ANIKASALSERA/PHONLAMAIPHOTO/GEARSTD/SKODONNELL/ RELAXFOTO.DE/MR1805/CUSTOMDESIGNER/GETTY IMAGES

8

THE BIG IDEA

Indirect cost – also known as Facilities & Administrative (F&A) cost or IDC – has continued to be a topic of great debate within universities because it is widely misunderstood.

Many investigators do not understand how F&A costs are determined or when it is applied, along with its overall purpose in supporting research. Is it because many research offices fail to explain it adequately?

When the government or any other sponsor, issues a grant to an academic institution for a project, part of the grant funds is used to pay for the team of researchers, purchase supplies and equipment, and pay for other goods and services directly related to the project. These funds are called “direct costs.” F&A costs, however, could support any number of things across a university’s research operation, and exactly what it supports varies from institution to institution.

The question of “why does the federal government provide support for indirect costs of research?” springs up quite consistently.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

9

Unpacking the F&A cost situation Let’s take a look at the University of Houston. Beverly Rymer is the executive director of the Office of Contracts and Grants at UH. According to Rymer, the portion of awards that go toward general upkeep and management is 53% of the modified total direct cost (MTDC) of the award (total cost less the cost of equipment, tuition, participant cost and a portion of sub-awards).

Of the 53% that is withheld from the faculty’s award at UH, over 40% of that amount is returned to colleges and departments as “F&A cost return” to be used as discretionary funds by the units.

Many faculty may not be aware of this.

“Our faculty often ask for a reduction in IDC when submitting proposals. Although they understand its purpose, not knowing where the money goes is the biggest concern,” said Cris Milligan, assistant vice president for research administration at the University of Houston. “From the PI perspective, they question why they have to pay for facilities when it’s technically been paid for.”

But faculty want to know: What are indirect costs really paying for?

In a simple internet search, you will find that many investigators throughout the academic community are worried that funds aren’t actually going toward research infrastructure. In fact, many do not have a clue where the money goes.

“As a key stakeholder in the process, research institutions can do a better job of enhancing transparency and eliminating some of the mystery around F&A cost reimbursement. Similar to the University of Houston, most research institutions post their F&A cost rate agreements on their institutional websites,” said Milligan. “Where we miss the mark is our failure to answer to the question: What does the XX% F&A cost rate really mean for our research institution?”

It is the same frustration many Americans can liken to paying taxes. Monies disappear from your paycheck and you never know what they end up funding. But different from our tax money going to the government, investigators’ funds go to the university, players on the same team who depend on each other to make the enterprise successful. So what’s the problem?

10

THE BIG IDEA

Milligan also suggests that it’s essential to accurately and transparently describe the F&A activities and their corresponding portion of the cost rate, which is necessary to conduct research at an institution. Providing clear, robust and meaningful data enhances transparency and reduces the myths and misunderstandings surrounding reimbursement of F&A costs.

Institutions such as Stanford and the University of Florida have recently published materials trying to “unpack” the discourse surrounding F&A costs as a way to get faculty to buy in.

Although concerns of how F&A monies are utilized may be university-specific, as a collective, the academic research administration has to do a better job at demonstrating the value of F&A payments to its faculty members. Talks in Washington of reducing F&A costs may further cement the belief that funds would be best served if used to cover direct research costs.

As previously explained, F&A monies are recouped for infrastructure, administrative and operational costs. Most federal agencies and sponsoring agencies pay the university for indirect costs in addition to the direct costs of a grant or award. Essentially, F&A is like a fixed, pre-tax contribution and not an expense that the faculty has to pay the university upon receipt of the award.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the percent of U.S. GDP spending on federally funded research and development annually has been stagnant or dropping for 40 years.

F&A Although F&A contribution subsidizes many research-related expenses, it’s a relatively small percentage of the actual costs that a university spends on: • Operations and Maintenance (utilities, janitorial, security, environmental safety) • Department Administration (the Division of Research and college-level research administrative units that endorse sponsored project proposals, accept awards and establish financial accounts) • Sponsored Program Administration (proposal submission, grant management, grant accounting, regulatory compliance) • General Administration (central IT, finance, risk management, HR) • Buildings (labs and offices) • Equipment • Libraries and Research Facilities

University contributions include: • Research buildings and laboratories •Costs incurred above the 26% cap mandated by the federal government for the Administrative component of the F&A cost • Startup funds and seed funding for faculty that support early career research labs and activities • Research administrative staff • University subsidies (mandatory cost sharing) • Investment in physical and digital library collections and digital repository of research data and results • Administrative and financial management tracking systems

profit from F&A costs associated with research grants. No, universities do not profit from their F&A recoveries. Universities aren’t even fully compensated for the expenditures they cover to develop the infrastructure and support needed to conduct the research the federal government needs from them.

A recent article from Inside HigherEd confirms that, “Indirect costs are infrastructure, not gravy that gets spread around. They cover the facilities and administration that support the specific research, which could not take place without the general staff, buildings, utilities and everything else that houses the research.”

The article continues, “All this costs more than any collection of research sponsors want to pay, even over many years. So universities lose money on indirect costs paid by NIH and every other sponsor under the sun.”

How are F&A rates determined?

In fact, in 2015, universities contributed about $5 billion in F&A expenses that were not reimbursed by the government.

Most of these expenses were not recompensed because of the OMB’s limitations on how much the government can support academic institutions for administrative and compliance related expenditures.

One lingering concern is what determines how much a university receives for indirect costs on a grant.

Transparency helps demystify F&A costs

According to the Council on Governmental Relations, “To determine the level of F&A expenses the federal government will cover, every 3-4 years, the agency responsible for setting a university’s F&A rate (either the Department of Defense Office of Naval Research or the Department of Health and Human Services) will comprehensively audit and assess these shared costs to determine the appropriate federal share based upon specific costs that have been deemed allowable expenses by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The overall figure is ultimately calculated as a percentage of the amount the federal government awards for direct research costs (not a percentage of the overall funds, the figure most people see).”

The Council on Governmental Relations published a comprehensive guide earlier this year titled “Excellence in Research: The Funding Model, F&A Reimbursement, and Why the System Works.”

Let’s say that, based on past research projects and expected costs, UH and the federal government determine that an amount equal to 50% of direct research costs is prudent for the federal government to contribute toward F&A costs. In this case, if the federal government awards UH $500,000 for direct research costs, it will also award half of that, $250,000, for F&A costs, totaling $750,000. These rates are then applied to all other university grants to avoid the inefficiency and expense of computing F&A rates for every single award.

Do universities profit from indirect costs?

According to the guide, “Clearer language and more transparency would eliminate some of the mystery around F&A cost reimbursement. The fact is, reimbursement of F&A costs should not be a controversial concept.”

Accurate language will better communicate the details of F&A costs and will minimize potential misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Improved transparency and more detailed data will allow stakeholders to enhance communications and engage in more productive, informative discourse regarding F&A cost reimbursement.

“Current language, rather than creating a common understanding, has made the practice of requesting reimbursement for F&A costs, at times, cryptic. As such, we propose that more accurate and responsible language be used by all stakeholders and, when possible, be incorporated into official policy documents, campus communications, all publications at the federal government level, and through all media outlets and publications.”

There is a misconception that permeates Divisions of Research (DORs) nationwide. There’s this idea that academic institutions FA L L 2 0 1 9

11

FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK

IS THE GRASS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE? Once again, we’re asking our serious scholars and researchers to set aside their deep thoughts, particle accelerators and Bunsen burners to take a more light-hearted approach. We present our UH professors with an everyday observation — like “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day”— and solicit their reactions. Some wax poetic, some whimsical, and the results are anything but scientifically verifiable. And, we hope, that’s why it’s fun.

This time, we’ve asked our panel to consider this truism: Is the grass always greener on the other side? — Eric Gerber

12

THE BIG IDEA

Cutting Remarks

Taking Sides

Green-vy?

By Ed Hirs

By Julia Wellner

By Stephen Barth

The grass is not greener on the other side of my fence. How is my grass greener?

Simple: My lawn is longer. I have broken the onerous chain of 1) fertilize 2) water 3) cut 4) mulch and 5) repeat. I prefer my ethanol for cocktails, not fuel for a highpowered mower. The traditional reel mower is used, only with reluctance, when the dog gets lost in the verdant backyard.

Bark if you can hear me, Happy.

During my biannual drive from Houston to Northern California and back, I had plenty of time to stare out the window and ponder the nature of “greener.”

Unfortunately, we do not have a definitive answer for the greener-grass question, and this may cause great consternation. But let’s narrow it down. First, hyperbolic words such as “always” and “never” are rarely accurate (please remember this for your next multiple choice exam).

The other lawns around me are meticulously manicured to a level that rivals Astroturf.

Morning and evening their sprinklers accelerate the growth by pouring water on the ground and frequently down the storm sewer — dispersing extra fertilizer into the Galveston Bay watershed. Their gasoline mowers belch CO2 on a weekly basis. Every month, the work crews over-apply fertilizers made from natural gas produced and transported by diesel engines. Round and round it goes. This is not very sustainable farming.

Grass effectively sequesters CO2 and efficiently converts solar energy to grow and maintain the lovely green color. Lately, grass has been under attack. Satellite photographs record the devastation of the Amazon’s rainforests.

Condo developments and erosion of shorelines have destroyed millions of acres of coastal grasses.The loss of seagrass near shore is a further assault on the planet’s native ability to absorb produced CO2. Where is all this headed?

It is easy to be greener. Let the lawn grow and conserve one’s own energy.

Hirs teaches energy economics courses to undergraduate and graduate students in the Department of Economics. An inaugural UH Energy Fellow, he is also a Chartered Financial Analyst in case you want to calculate how much your green lawn is really costing you.

The journey started in the lush green of Houston in early summer. Yes, bits of our city get a little dry by the start of the fall semester, but anyone who doesn’t consider Houston green hasn’t been west. I crossed Texas’s brown, dusty cattle ranches and grasslands heading into New Mexico and through Colorado, with green forest becoming more dominant, then across miles of windy, rolling Wyoming grass, and finally across Utah’s Bonneville Salt Flats, where there is no sign of anything ever having been green, although as a geologist I know it once was. I continued across brown Nevada before reaching the cool, green forest of the High Sierra to spend my vacation away from Houston heat.

Nature generally doesn’t make lines and therefore doesn’t really have “other” sides.

I saw the green grass gradually turn into a brown landscape … then slowly back again.

I returned via Southern California, the Sonoran Desert, and then I-10 from El Paso, passing farms where irrigation made sharp lines between green, growing fields and fallow, brown ones. People created these artificial boundaries where “the other side” is indeed “greener,” but such distinctions remain as scars along the natural landscape.

Wellner is an associate professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences specializing in stratigraphy, sedimentology and glacial processes.

She is particularly interested in Antarctic ice sheets and finds herself thinking about them whenever temperatures in Houston approach 100.

So, the grass could be greener, but like many vexing thoughts the answer depends on the variables: how often is the new grass fertilized, watered and loved? Are we comparing the same shades of green on both sides? And, of course, if one side is in Kentucky then the grass there might be blue instead of green, invalidating the entire thesis!

We do have some adages to help us ponder: “The devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t.”

But also, “The biggest risk is not taking any risk.”

I would also argue, since that’s what lawyers do, one first needs to ask if they will be able to even scale the fence as it often takes courage and ingenuity to get over to the other side. But we do know that happiness comes from within, so if one is not happy in his current pasture then — even if the grass is exceptionally greener — it is likely they will discover that happiness, alas, remains elusive.

And envy disappoints us all.

In the end, we make our own weather or, as John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, concluded, “The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, or a Hell of Heaven.”

Barth is a professor of law and leadership in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management. An attorney, he is a founding member of the Hospitality Industry Bar Association and once wrote an article titled “Foodservice Liability: Rocks in the Refried Beans.”

FA L L 2 0 1 9

13

FEATURE

14

THE BIG IDEA

DOWN TO EARTH: HAS AMERICA RETURNED FROM ITS GIANT LEAP?

Kardashians over the cosmos, sports over science, memes over medical breakthroughs, dragons over discoveries; the American public is the neglectful parent that can’t take their eye off the big game while their bespectacled, bright-eyed daughter is trying to show them the A+ she got on her science project.

In a world where most Americans don’t consume science news, NASA shines in reigniting the flame of public interest. How can universities follow?

By Rene Cantu

GETTY / RASTAH

FA L L 2 0 1 9

15

HOW DOES SCIENCE NEWS COMPETE WITH POP CULTURE? On November 24, 2017, it was announced that a group of researchers from Imperial College London and King’s College London developed a new method for creating 3D replications of human organs and tissues. This cryogenics-based technique opened the door for scientists to one day regenerate damaged tissues for transplantation without the risk of having the tissues rejected by the body during the transplant. Surely, a paradigm-shifting achievement that will one day positively affect millions of people.

The top story for this same day, November 24, 2017, was the chaos and unmitigated frenzy of Black Friday. Social media and television news were flooding the airwaves and cyberspace with videos of people trampling over each other for a $50 foot massager or a discounted toaster radio.

A groundbreaking achievement in medicine and technology, one that will undoubtedly save lives and provide hope for those waiting to find a matching organ donor, overshadowed and pushed aside.

So, why does there seem to be a spotlight on celebrity culture over medical advancements; political drama over technological breakthroughs; and people who play doctors on TV over, well, actual doctors?

According to Pew data, a survey reflected that two-thirds of Americans do not seek out science news. In fact, it revealed that only 17% of Americans are active science news consumers.

This is congruent with the notion that even NASA might be suffering from a similar dip in public interest over the last few decades. If NASA, the largest, most successful space exploration entity the world has ever known, has felt the effect of low public interest, then maybe that’s a good indication that the sciences in general have felt it.

The same thing happened on August 21, 2018, a date that should have cemented itself in the annals of human records. That’s when scientists from the University of British Columbia discovered an enzyme from the human intestinal tract that can convert types A and B blood into type O blood, also known as the universal donor blood type. Surely, this discovery could one day put an end to blood-supply shortages and substantially improve the quality of life for people who cannot find a blood match.

Mainstream media mistrust

The top story that day? The MTV Video Music Awards.

Nary a peep on this life-saving breakthrough.

But why? Why are these people, who are so curious about the sciences, not actively seeking out science news stories?

16

THE BIG IDEA

While NASA may have certainly wrestled with the issue of public disengagement, the evidence overwhelmingly reflects a lack of interest in science news across the board. As the Pew Research Center suggested, while most Americans admit curiosity about science news, only a minority of these survey takers actively consumed science news.

GETTY / ANGELATTAWKEY / PHOTORIDEOSTOCK

One answer could be that most Americans don’t trust the scientific credibility of mainstream news outlets. The Pew study showed that most Americans feel that niche or specialty sources like museums, documentaries, or science magazines “get the science right,” as opposed to general news sources.

getting the science right most of the time. These numbers, however, go up considerably among the active science news consumers, more than 70 percent of whom think museums, documentaries, and science magazines get it right most of the time.”

“(And) while Americans are most likely to get their science news from general news outlets and say the news media overall do a good job covering science, they consider a handful of specialty sources – documentaries, science magazines, and science and technology museums – as more likely to get the science facts right,” wrote researchers Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Cary Funk in their Pew Research Center article “Science News and Information Today.”

Since NASA is the mothership of world science and the proverbial trendsetter for engineering, let’s delve deeper into the waxing and waning of the public’s interest in NASA news. Let’s explore why interest has dipped and how they are countering it effectively.

“Even the most active of science news consumers regularly get science news from (these) general news outlets. But general outlets, by a longshot, are not considered the most accurate – that distinction goes to specialty sources, specifically documentaries, science magazines, and science and technology museums.”

Per John Timmer, the science editor for Ars Technica, “While the single largest source was general news, only a quarter of those surveyed feel that the news gets its science right most of the time.

In fact, none of the sources was considered especially accurate.

Even museums and dedicated science magazines were rated as

FA L L 2 0 1 9

17

“Americans support for space exploration is a mile wide and an inch deep.”

-Eric Berger, meteorologist and founder of Space City Weather GETTY / STOCKBYTE

ZORAZHUANG | GETTY

18

THE BIG IDEA

Back down to Earth This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon. Surely, a human achievement worthy of celebration. Also, earlier this year, NASA reaffirmed its commitment to the timeline of landing humans on the moon’s south pole by 2024 as it advances its Artemis Moon Program. Add to this the Opportunity rover’s disheartening final transmission in February, which had the collective lip of the nation quivering with heartache, the first image of a black hole going viral in April, and intensified talks of going to Mars, and it is apparent that NASA has relaunched itself on to the forefront of the national consciousness.

But has it always been that way?

Has America finally come back down to earth from its giant leap in 1969?

NASA aerospace technologist and former University of Houston faculty member Gary Kitmacher explored the perceived fading public interest in NASA activity in his published paper “Social Psychology and Developing a Campaign for Influencing Public Interest in the Space Program.”

“The great adventure that is spaceflight has unfolded in a relatively short time. Public interest in space travel built throughout the 1950s to a crescendo at the time of the first moon landing in 1969.

Space flight provided new and unique perspectives of our world and of other worlds. The early space program of the 1950s and 1960s caught the public’s attention, engaged their interests and reliably fulfilled the promises of exploration, as envisioned in the science fiction of decades earlier,” he wrote.

Kitmacher supported a general consensus that NASA’s public interest stock waned in the years following that fateful day in 1969. He portrayed the public’s interest in NASA up until the moon landing as one that was built up over time, cradled, developed, and ultimately validated in the most dramatic way imaginable when Neil Armstrong’s foot pressed down against lunar sands.

“After the first manned moon landing, public interest waned.

There have been some brief periods when some interest was regained for a short time, but it never saw the public interest of the 1960s.”

The paper echoes former NASA chief of strategic communications Robert Hopkins’s 2007 market research, in which he found that, “NASA has broad public support, but only a fraction of the public believes that NASA is relevant to their lives.”

The paper also cites a report called “Building and Maintaining the Constituency for Long-Term Space Exploration” which showed a “broad but not necessarily deep support for space flight activities.”

There is this theme that seems to consistently rear its head, in which public support for NASA is widespread, but just not deep enough. As meteorologist and founder of Space City Weather Eric Berger put it, “American support for space exploration is a mile wide and an inch deep.”

In other words, everyone feels what NASA does is important, but not so important that they’re willing to invest a lot of money into it.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

19

COST

SPACE

IN

During the Apollo program, the United States was in the middle of the Cold War with Russia. The public was in an ideological trance, under the spell of jingoism to the extent where they wanted, nay, needed to be better than the Russians at everything. Money be damned.

“They were basically given a blank check. With the Apollo program, we were racing the Russians, we were in the middle of the Cold War and we wanted to beat them. With that comes public support because people want to win. And with that comes money. Because it’s war time. It’s been a struggle to get the kind of money that we got with Apollo,” explained Alex Stuckey, Houston Chronicle NASA and science reporter.

In 2019, NASA has anything but a blank check. In fact, an often regurgitated factoid is that, according to the Harvard Business Review, NASA’s funding is currently at 0.5% of the federal budget, compared to 4.5% 50 years ago. That begs the question, why exactly should the public want to spend more money on NASA? According to David Brady, an ISS associate program scientist for NASA’s Johnson Space Center, NASA’s benefits to humanity are so immense and worthy of more funding because its discoveries and breakthroughs inspire new generations of scientists and engineers and provide practical, tangible advancements to our daily lives.

“People continue to support space exploration because they see it as ‘dreaming big dreams and going out to make them come true,’ so we’re always interested in trying to tell people how our research applies not only to their daily lives but to extending humanity out into the cosmos. This gives them plenty of reason to be interested in what we’re doing both from a standpoint of tangible benefits and from a standpoint of inspirational benefits as well,” explained a passionate Brady.

“NASA is very dedicated to celebrating the successes of the past, the ability to dare to dream and do great things, the desire to explore and go out there and do things that inspire people. I like to visit elementary schools and I tell them that even if you want to be an astronaut or a scientist, NASA isn’t just about STEM engagement, even though that’s huge part of our message and workforce, NASA is about dreaming big dreams and then going after them,” Brady said.

In her article “Going Back: Why returning to the moon is so important for the U.S.,” Alex Stuckey echoed the notion of NASA as inspiration, writing, “When the Apollo 11 crew reached the moon in July 1969, they did more than just beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race. They inspired a generation of scientists and engineers.”

FPM | GETTY

20

THE BIG IDEA

In this piece, Stuckey also cited Pascal Lee, co-founder and chairman of the Mars Institute, a nonprofit headquartered at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California, “This was such an exciting thing that (people) embraced science and technology boldly, and it’s because of this that there was a surge in interest in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields that the U.S. has today. The boost in STEM areas not only helped the country remain a technological superpower for decades, it also created a huge economic boost.”

Lee continued, “The U.S. needs to go somewhere beyond Earth’s orbit, whether it be the moon or Mars, to achieve that sort of inspiration again.”

For all the talk about NASA’s benefit to humanity via inspiration, it’s easy to overlook all the tangible work NASA has done in recent years, and all of the ways this work benefits the very public that is so reticent to invest money in it. Here are some of the ways NASA has contributed to our everyday lives here on Earth. Just a few of NASA’s benefits to humanity: Video stabilization software allows users to enhance the quality of shaky footage. It has been used to locate missing children, analyze footage of terrorist attacks, and even helped confirm the capture of Saddam Hussein.

The technology behind the robotic machines used to build the ISS also powers the robotic tools that assist in performing detailed, difficult surgeries in hospitals. This robotic technology has allowed for complex surgeries, like brain tumor removal, to be performed. It is commercial innovations like these that prove funding NASA is in the best interest of the public at large. As David Brady put it, “We use creative pursuits in order to further science and answer questions, which eventually lead to innovations, which eventually lead to economic benefits, which eventually lead to more exploration.”

One of NASA’s biggest benefits to humanity is the commercialization of the low-Earth orbit (LEO). The LEO is the area of Earth’s orbit just close enough to the planet for convenient transportation, communication, and resupply. This is prime location for any proposed future platform. Companies are interested in developing commercial space stations in LEO. “The commercialization of low-Earth orbit, the expansion of businesses there has doubled over the last 10 years now, the economy is now up into the $300 billion dollar range. We see that as very encouraging from the standpoint of being able to establish markets that allow commercial companies to come forward and do things in low-earth orbit as NASA continues to push out into the cosmos,” Brady proclaimed.

Cooling suits, created to keep astronauts comfortable during forays on the moon, are now worn by race car drivers, nuclear techs, sufferers of multiple sclerosis, and even kids with disorders like hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, which keeps their little bodies from cooling themselves down. Thank you, NASA.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

21

AMERICAN PUBLIC,

DO YOU COPY?

From the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, the growing push for LEO commercialization, the talk of going to Mars, and the highly anticipated Artemis Moon Plan, there’s no doubt that NASA is giving the public reasons to get excited. With the alleged decline of public interest, how is NASA bridging that gap with all the great things it’s currently doing?

Communications.

“So many people care about science, it’s just that it’s not delivered to them in a manner in which they can understand it. If you can tell it to them in a way that makes sense, tell them how it affects their life, then they’ll understand,” Stuckey explained.

She gave an example of testing drugs in space to treat osteoporosis.

“You lose bone density when you’re in space, so if you can test those kinds of drugs up there and it works it would definitely help people down here who are not subject to microgravity. So that’s one way to get people interested, show them how it can tangibly affect their lives here on Earth.”

Stuckey also touched on what might be the single biggest influencer of how, not just NASA, but other science-based institutions, distribute their stories: social media.

22

THE BIG IDEA

“With the advent of social media, a lot of institutions think they can just skip a step of someone who can diffuse the story. No one is vetting what is being said. They think they can just post a study on Twitter and that’s it,” she said.

“They essentially cut out the middle man, so there’s nobody to effectively communicate their research in a way that speaks to the lay audience. You need that middle man to get the information out.”

Or middle woman.

Rachel Barry is the “middle woman” for NASA’s Johnson Space Center. She is the communications managing editor for the ISS program science office.

“I help our group identify science topics to cover for our communications products and help share the stories of the science that happens on the space station. That involves identifying cool aspects of the research that would be interesting for the public,” Barry explained.

Her work involves producing science stories on social media and broadcasting the most entertaining and compelling aspects of the Johnson Space Center’s activity to the world.

“I’m not a scientist but I play one on Twitter,” she joked.

Barry also spoke about the power of leveraging big audiences.

“I feel like I’ve gotten an advanced degree just working here because I’m studying the science all day every day so that I can communicate it. Because I don’t come from a science background, it’s easier for me to translate stuff that I’ve learned to lay people,” Barry continued.

“We are one piece of NASA’s overall story. We have many great research stories to tell, but we don’t have access to the extensive audience that the main NASA channels do. Our strategy is to identify those big players who can help carry our message much farther. We get them excited about the science, and do everything we can to support them sharing our stories so they can, in turn, exponentially expand our reach.”

It’s hard to invest time in and get excited about something you can’t comprehend. That’s precisely why Barry’s role as a communications lead is so vital to how NASA disseminates its stories to the mostly uninitiated public at large.

According to Pew researchers Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Cary Funk, “Many Americans say the public’s limited knowledge about science — as well as the way the public interprets science news — are problems. Some 44% of Americans say it is a big problem that the public doesn’t really know enough about science to understand research findings in the news.”

Moreover, Science Daily revealed that “Approximately 28 percent of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate, an increase from around 10 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”

Sure, that’s a rise in percentage, but that still leaves 72% of people who don’t even understand basic scientific concepts. Both studies show just why it’s so important for there to be a conduit of communication from researcher to news consumer. The average consumer wants to hear about science news, but they need these stories to be less esoteric and more digestible for the lay audience.

With almost a million Twitter followers and 700,000 Instagram followers, it’s incontrovertible that Barry and her team are successfully pushing out the science news and, more importantly, getting the public excited about it.

The moon landing was 50 years ago this July 20th. The public’s interest is said to have waned since that fateful day in 1969. But the fire that propels NASA to continue to innovate, to dream, still burns brilliantly. And with extraordinary, passionate storytellers like Alex Stuckey, Eric Berger, John Timmer, and Rachel Barry, perhaps that is a light that will never go out.

“Let me say, as I sit here before you today having walked on the Moon, that I am myself still awed by that miracle. That awe, in me and in each of us … must be the engine of future achievement, not a slow dimming light from a time once bright.” – Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 astronaut

As Carl Sagan once lamented, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”

GETTY / IMAGINIMA

FA L L 2 0 1 9

23

PERSPECTIVES

CONVERGING ON THE ANSWER LOOKING PAST THE HYPE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TO THE REAL WORK THAT DRIVES IT

By Tim Holt

GETTY / KIEFERPX

24

THE BIG IDEA

Q&A

A Q&A

WITH BECKAM DOSSETT, UH SCHOOL FOR ARTS Society is faced with a plethora of grand challenges. Energy crises, environmental pollution, and health disparities, for starters. Scientists and social scientists must work together to navigate these vast, rough waters. Their unique disciplines must intermingle. Their research must converge.

In 2016, the National Science Foundation (NSF) introduced convergence research as one of its “10 big ideas for the future.”

They defined it under two broad criteria: the research “needs to be driven by a specific and compelling problem” and it should involve “deep integration across disciplines.” Sounds simple enough.

But this ever-sharpening focus on interdisciplinary research exposes a need for practical guidance on how to cross its wellguarded borders. Convergence research requires everyone at the university to travel outside their comfort zones. For faculty in creative disciplines and the basic science researchers who take their cues from agencies like the NSF, finding common ground might seem like a tall order. But the potential to create powerful synergies is great too.

Beckham Dossett, associate dean for research in the McGovern College of the Arts and associate professor of graphic design in the School of Art, discusses how universities can connect their experts to answer calls for collaborative work that address increasingly complex societal problems.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

25

As an administrator and a faculty member, you have a unique perspective on the various rallying cries around interdisciplinary research. Where is the engine of this type of convergence within the university?

I’ve been on a number of committees over the years where the initiative is “let’s talk about interdisciplinary research,” and the energy in the room is great. Then nothing happens. So what’s the incentive to make something happen? The goal is “we need to do this, this is why we’re here.” But “the how” is less clear. If funding agencies are creating opportunities that incentivize this kind of work, then the big question is: who is going to promote the how and what are the things that have to happen to begin to crack that?

It starts within the university administration to set a tone, to reach out to faculty. I can encourage faculty in my college to do more research or suggest that they go do something with someone else, but that incentive is going to be much stronger if it comes from someone above me who can speak authoritatively to the colleges and say to everyone, “let’s try this.”

We need to do this, this is why we’re here. But “the how” is less clear.

Whether it’s an artist or a scientist, faculty have a hard time reaching out to each other. There are a lot of institutional barriers that you have to break. We have heard “interdisciplinary” over and over and over. Making connections across the university is difficult because of the demands on faculty to do research. They feel like there’s not a lot of room to move out of the narrow track they’re on to stop and ask, “Is there a question I can engage with another discipline on?” It’s a distraction from what you’re doing.

At UH, our associate vice president for research is making inroads toward this simply by going to the colleges and getting to know them. She’s very interested in creating a space — both conceptual and physical — for faculty to come together and discover each other. Creating that space is important, but that takes time.

When funding agencies or university administrations say interdisciplinary or convergence, do you think the arts are implied in that scope? Is there more work to be done toward clarifying the value proposition for artists as potential research partners?

My feeling is that the arts are a blind spot. Some grants might call for an educational component, and I’ve spoken with artists on other campuses who acknowledge that as a way into these relationships. That is a very narrow slice of what we do, and perhaps not every artist’s preferred way in, but it speaks to artists being able to make ideas accessible.

If an agency asks, “How do you take your research project and make the public understand it? How do you make it relevant to their lives?” Artists understand how to look at information and connect it to people. They will interpret it in a very different way.

There’s value in that interpretation.

But if artists are only seen as making things beautiful, we run the risk of becoming service providers. The end goal is having artists come in from the outset. We might be assuming the scientists are initiating these questions.

What if an artist or someone from the humanities initiated the question?

So, creating equitable partnerships?

Absolutely.

We can do a lot with a little, whereas for basic science there is a huge amount of infrastructure required and the payout is potentially very high, but rare. The expectations, budgets and requirements are so disparate. We’re almost speaking different languages.

Artists and scientists are both great observers. They share a curious nature. In academia, our economy values one more than the other. But if you can put that aside, I think they are just two groups of people that don’t know how to come together, typically.

Are there successful models out there for this type of work?

The arts, especially graphic design, are collaborative by nature.

Is there something the university as a whole can learn from the way you solve problems?

Start with the students.

Graphic designers are collaborators by necessity. If we’re not working with other people, we’re not working. We teach our students to work with clients and collaborators and have a conversation. Out of that conversation, the design happens.

It comes out of the dialogue.

We’ve had success bringing colleges together with student projects. What we see there is that students from different disciplines don’t know how to talk to each other at first. They’re suspicious of each other because one group has their process and understanding of the project and another group has theirs. The work is trying to get them to talk about the project together. That is a lot to coordinate, but it’s a microcosm of faculty engagement.

In the same way, problems are not solved from one point of view or with one skillset. By their nature, they require a lot of different points of view to solve.

26

THE BIG IDEA

And students are already somewhat interdisciplinary, they get around campus and take classes with other people. By creating a force, there is a way to bring faculty together.

What if an artist or someone from the humanities initiated the question?

Along with these calls to converge, we hear criticism of hyperspecialization in academia. Do you envision it becoming easier or harder to break down the walls between fields in the years to come?

Based on my experience with the Art History M.A program in the School of Art and the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Hispanic Studies, there’s potential for that to be more common. Putting more faculty members with interdisciplinary training out into the world — generationally speaking — is going to become more important. My colleagues are seeing their students looking for faculty jobs and what’s being demanded of them is that they’re not specialists, that they interweave Art History with Hispanic Studies with Film Studies and so on.

That’s within the humanities. The art world cliché is the artist in his or her studio alone. But artists are collaborative. They engage with many groups including community activists, urban planners and technologists.

Any advice for faculty upon venturing out of their disciplinary comfort zones?

Think of networking as a super power Yannis Yortsos, dean of engineering at University of Southern California, puts some immediate context around convergence in his talk “The Promise and Challenges of Convergence Research.”

He explains that the current pace of technological change breathes urgency into interdisciplinary initiatives. While our lives play out linearly, technology is growing exponentially. At any given moment, the amount we don’t know keeps expanding.

However, in that widening gap there are opportunities to solve important problems. Developing a facility for collaboration and sharing knowledge may help faculty overcome blind spots.

Designers know that conversation is a discipline all its own, but one that acts as a doorway into all others.

Convergence requires faculty to start out with an understanding of both the stakes of societal challenges — the why — and the value of our collective expertise — the what. Finding “the how” may be as subtle as posing the right question to the right people.

It’s important to be vulnerable, acknowledging what you don’t know. There’s empathy; listening to another person’s point of view. You may not agree with them, but you have to appreciate what they’re saying.

What we tell design students is: you help the client understand what they really need. We teach them how to listen, how to have conversations and be open to the answers. Learning how to ask good questions comes from listening.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

27

DISCUSSION BOARD

The Great Connector:

Academia Meets the Market There’s something happening on the UH campus. Just over the freeway, on the other side of the tracks, there’s a part of UH that is setting Houston’s tech and science world aflame.

The Technology Bridge. A place where academia meets the market thanks to a program designed to connect both worlds: the Connectivity Program.

By Rene Cantu

28

THE BIG IDEA

The Bridge

Soon, Manhattan flourished. New York City was reborn. It was primarily thanks to the Brooklyn Bridge. The great connector.

In the latter half of the 19th century, post-Civil War, the US

The same thing is happening right now on the University of Houston campus.

economy was booming. Money backed by gold, the Legal Tender Act, railroads, steel, and a burgeoning innovative spirit fresh off the heels of the Industrial Revolution patched up many of the holes left by the Civil War. Labor was in demand, especially in big cities like New York. New York, with its five boroughs, presented a unique problem to hopeful and ambitious workers: the only way to get around was by ferry. This limited form of conveyance caused some people to seek employment closer to home. Unfortunately for Brooklynites, the jobs were really aplenty in Manhattan.

One man would change the fortunes of Brooklynites hoping to find work in Manhattan: John A. Roebling. The man that designed the Brooklyn Bridge. Upon its completion in 1883, the Brooklyn Bridge allowed people in the city to more easily travel to jobs in Manhattan and vice versa. It connected the borough with the most people (at the time) to the borough with the most jobs available.

Just east of the UH main campus, a mere 12 minutes away, lies a 700,000 Square-Foot space suited for laboratories, pilot-scale facilities and manufacturing. Behold; the Technology Bridge.

“One of the reason we use the name bridge is because it’s a bridge from the academic world, one step closer to the market.

It bridges the gap between research and commercialization,” explained Tom Campbell, former executive director of the UH Office of Technology Transfer and Innovation.

Some might remember this space being Energy Research Park.

The beginnings of a Powerhouse campus. Now, that area is a hub for innovation and the campus’s nucleus for tech transfer.

“The initial push for the Energy Research Park was to build momentum and create a critical mass of companies. We achieved that. But then we started looking and we found that these companies didn’t have a real close association with the University of Houston,” Campbell said.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

29

The Connectivity Program Campbell spearheaded an initiative to lasso together UH faculty and business executives. Researchers with entrepreneurs. Scientists with businesspeople. This initiative is called the Connectivity Program. It is a way to form a community of people that exchange ideas and form business relationships. It offers startups a quid pro quo in which they find ways to connect with UH and in return, UH faculty provides them with their unique scientific expertise.

“One of the reasons for attracting this community of people is, you want to try to bring companies in so that you give them the opportunity to learn, but equally so, the university gets an opportunity to learn,” Campbell proclaimed.

“The co-mingling of UH faculty startups and startups outside the university is a positive thing because they each learn from one another. By incubating them in the same space, it creates an innovation ecosystem where faculty who are inclined to create startups can have a place that’s just a stone’s throw away from their academic labs. They can teach during the day, and during the evenings and weekends they can come over to the Technology Bridge and actually try to commercialize their technology and take it forward. You now have a bridge that brings you one step closer to the commercial world.”

Commercialization of technology There are two primary channels through which startups come into the UH incubator: faculty startup and startup. A faculty startup is a vehicle to commercialize UH research. Why would a university care about that?

“Lots of inventors and faculty members want to get their ideas out into the market. The ideas are super early. Early-stage stuff.

So this thought that it’s two years in your garage and it’s ready for market, that’s more like five to ten years of really painful work.

It’s not like opening a new restaurant or dry cleaning service.

These are early-stage, research-based startups that are deep technology-based,” warned Campbell.

Five to 10 years is a long time. That’s about two bachelor’s degrees. Two presidential terms. Two World Cups. With such a long time of investing money, emotions, pain, you’ll need a place to put everything together. A place you’ll probably make your second home in that span. You’ll need an incubator.

“Acquiring startups into a university incubator creates an entrepreneurial or innovative spirit within your faculty. A company might need the technical expertise of UH faculty and, in turn, UH faculty will learn from an entrepreneur’s startup execution experience. It’s a win-win. There’s got to be a natural synergy to make it work.”

30

THE BIG IDEA

It might surprise you to know that most of the products in your house had its origins in the technology that came out of a university. Your toaster oven, window cleaning liquid, paint coating and myriad other things were all in some way or another created from university-based technology.

“Universities create ideas and technology and companies create products. If you’re going to commercialize your product and bring it to market, you’re going to have to do it through a company.

There is no manufacturing group at UH,” explained Campbell.

“And by the way, all the big national funding agencies are all now asking for commercialization plans. What do you plan to do with this work? The reason for that is that they have to talk to Congress.

Since it’s a lot of taxpayer money funding long-term research, they want to be able to show these discoveries are getting into the market and making the world a better place.”

The four tiers of the apocalypse Campbell explained that his team created the Connectivity Program because he questioned the value they were creating with this fee-based model for startup incubation.

“We knew the value was related to connectivity, so we created the connectivity program,” he said. The program is a way to establish a connection with a company when we bring them in. It’s not just about the rent; that’s part of it because we do have to offset costs.

But it’s more about what kind of relationship we can build with that company while they reside here.”

So, Campbell came up with four tiers that would determine the fate of startups. Either they form a connection with UH in some way, or they see an end to the partnership. It’s actually how most romantic relationships work. No connection, no future.

Tier 1: Startups that are trying to commercialize UH intellectual property. These startups are all about taking UH ideas that originated on campus and bringing them to market.

“If you are commercializing UH technology you get a break on your rent price,” revealed Ryan Black, the program director for The Bridge.

Tier 2: These startups offer a deeper level of engagement. They sponsor research on campus or create relationships with faculty members to get them engaged in the company. These startups represent a higher level of connectivity.

Tier 3: These companies have formed relationships with faculty but have no technology.

Tier 4: The Connectivity Program allows Tier 4 companies to apply whether they have UH technology or not. Startups in this tier are notified that if they don’t create some level of connectivity with the university, their trial will be terminated.

“We don’t want to just move companies in and have a long-term rental relationship with them. We want companies who have some interest in UH. It’s got to be a win-win. A win for the company and a win for UH,” Campbell said.

Survey Says: Success!

The Connectivity Program has incontrovertibly been a rousing success, with only two private labs short of being 100% full for the first time. True to form, the Connectivity Program has played the role of a bridge in merging two worlds: the academic world and the business world.

The program has helped companies like RevoChem develop and grow their business beyond Houston. RevoChem has, in turn, fostered their connection with UH by hiring science and business graduates from the university.

“I can honestly say, RevoChem would not be possible without the Connectivity Program. This program helped us attain a laboratory to test our ideas, which have now become successful commercial products used by more than 20 oil and gas companies, including many big ones such as Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Occidental,” attested Fay Liu, founder and CEO of RevoChem LLC. “The Connectivity Program made the UH incubator a great resource not just to the university but to the entire Houston area.

We have even hired four UH graduates with science and business backgrounds after joining the program,” she added.

Oleon is another great company that has made great strides with their connection to UH. “UH Technology Bridge has offered Oleon a landing spot in Houston for us to start both our business and R&D work. It is a rare find in Houston to have both office and lab space available combined with a fishing pool of talented students. I think it is a great initiative to bring together the resources of the University with those of the industry. Clearly a win-win for both sides,” said Dave Jacobs, general manager of operations for Oleon.

When asked about the gravity of university incubators and why entrepreneurs are drawn to them like bees to pollen, Campbell expressed that universities represent the very progressive spirit that is congruent with that of young, starry-eyed startup entrepreneurs.

“There’s a tremendous amount of collegiality and goodwill that comes from this group of people. They migrate to a university just because they feel that a university is about bringing new ideas and new people (graduates) into the world, trying to do something good,” he said.

The Connectivity Program has given UH-based startups a path for taking their ideas from lab to market.

FA L L 2 0 1 9

31

CONTEMPLATIONS

How Many Wings

BY JOHN LIENHARD I snatched a copy of Jim Winchester’s book, The World’s Worst Aircraft, from my bookstore’s remainders table. Not the first book with that title – I’ve seen at least two others. Of course, no such selection can satisfy everyone. Winchester lists 150 “worst” airplanes, and I could add more.

Winchester got my attention because almost ten percent of his airplanes had three or more wings.

It’s easy to see why we added wings. Early engines had very low power for their weight; so planes needed a lot of lift. Extra wings seemed to be the answer. Most early airplanes were biplanes.

We had better engines by World War I and Fokker’s first fighter-scout plane was his single-winged Eindecker. But those planes had to maneuver and turn on a dime. They needed to be more compactless turning inertia. Two wings, much shorter, solved that problem. And here the fun begins because, if two was better than one, wouldn’t three be better than two? And so on.

Triplanes did indeed turn better. But consider how airfoils work: They speed the air-flow over the top and slow it below. So the wing above and the wing below fight each other. The more wings, the closer we have to stack them. The more interference! Triplanes also needed more bracing, and that meant more drag.

So the Sopwith Company built a triplane, and it did well in combat. But its upkeep was a problem. They soon replaced it with the easy-to-maintain Sopwith Camel (Snoopy’s biplane). But the Germans had seen the triplane, and Fokker quickly built his version – the Red Baron’s famed triplane ...

... which we view as a great fighter. But it suffered structural failures. It was very hard to handle. It climbed slowly. Most German pilots hated it. The Red Baron scored only a quarter of his kills in one – then he himself died in it.

Meanwhile any number of builders tried four-winged quadruplanes. Every one flopped. Fokker even tried a five-winged aeroplane that barely got off the ground.

And that was far from the end of it. Wings take us up, shouldn’t more wings be better? The 9-winged Caproni Ca.60 seaplane crash-landed and broke up on its second take-off test. Wikipedia lists 26 such planes – all failures.

We should’ve taken nature’s lesson to heart. Insects use tandem wings; but they fly by different aerodynamic rules. Birds are all simple monoplanes. Multiple wings is one more idea that seems so obvious, we cling to it long after its flaws have slapped our wrists many times. And it’s just one such idea among so many.

We keep building flying automobiles, ornithopters, flying jetpacks, and many-winged airplanes. And all can be made to work. Yet each has warned us, again and again that it’s not effective. It’s an odd thing about technology: If we believe it ought to work, we won’t let go. I suppose that has value in the long run. But it does lead us into so many really strange dead ends.

J. Winchester, The World’s Worst Aircraft, (NY Metro Books, 2007).

Dr. John Lienhard is a retired professor of mechanical engineering and history at the University of Houston. He’s the founding author and voice of the nationally-aired radio program, “The Engines of our Ingenuity.” www.uh.edu/engines

GETTY / THEKOPMYLIFE / SERG_VELUSCEAC PHOTOS BY JOHN LIENHARD

NON - PROFIT ORG. U.S . P O STAG E

PA I D

H O U S TO N , T E X A S P E R M I T N O . 5 9 10

UH DIVISION OF RESEARCH 4302 UNIVERSIT Y DRIVE ROOM 316 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77204-2015

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

SCRATCHING YOUR HEAD ABOUT

RESEARCH ISSUES? Join the conversation: www.uh.edu/thebigidea