Outline

I. Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights

II. Research Statistics

III. Trend Analysis

IV. Comparative Analysis

V. Impact: Another Metric for Research

VI. Conclusion

VII. Discussion

Fiscal Year 2008 Highlights

Sponsored research awards 2008 rose to $675M,an impressive 8.3% increase

In 2007 R&D expenditures grew nearly 5%,increasing from $595M to $624M

Source of funding remained unchanged: 71% fromfederal sources, 44% from NIH, 10% from NSF

Gross revenues from patent and licensing activityincreased to $86.9M, a 25% increase

Significant improvement in Shanghai World Rankings,moving to 28th-ranked research university in world (upfrom 33rd)

2008 Sponsored Expenditures by College

Report Figure 2.1

6.1% increase over 2007

>20% increase in the School of Public Health

2008 Sponsored Awards by College

Report Figure 2.2

8.3% ($56M) increase over 2007

25% or greater increases in: IT, Vet Med and Pharmacy

20% or greater in Nursing

2008 Sponsored Expendituresby Source

Report Figure 2.3

Sources of funding remain relatively unchanged:

71% federal sources44% NIH 10% NSF

Technology Commercialization

Two new metrics will be reported•Current Revenue Generating Agreements•Outgoing Material Transfer Agreements

$21M increase in revenue over 2007

Two strong start-ups launched; others in pipelineReport Table 3.1

R&D Expenditures: 1999-2007NSF Survey

2007 total = $624M

~5% growth from 2006

Report Figure 3.1

Sponsored Expenditures: 1999-2008 by Category

Report Figure 3.2

Expenditures by source relatively unchanged

Most overall growth is attributable to increases from federal sources

Comparison Group Rankings

Report Table 4.1

UMN 9th ranked among public universities; same as 2006

UMN ranked 14th nationally among all universities

World ranking by Shanghai improved from 33rd in 2007

2007 Rankings by R&D ExpendituresNSF Survey

Report Figure 4.1

UMN 9th ranked among public universities; same as 2006

R&D Expenditure Growth: 1999-2007 NSF Survey

Report Figure 4.2

68% growth since 1999

13th among peer group

Up from 15th in 2006

Gap to number three reduced to $199M

Report Table 4.2

UMN retained 9th ranking from 2006

Growth since 2004 totaled $98M dollars

18.6% increase

Second-largest change among top public research universities in this interval

Rate of growth slowing at some prominent institutions

2007 R&D Expenditures by SourceNSF Survey

Source of funding among top public universities differs significantly

Report Figure 4.3

Impact of Change in Just One Source:Business and Industry

Ohio State increased B&I-supported research expenditures greater than 3-fold since 2005

Now #1 in B&I research support

60% of the growth in total research activity in this period is attributable to B&I support

Attributable to the state’s Third Frontier initiative

Report Figure 4.4

Comparative Analysis35 Year Historical Context

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.0019

72

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

To

tal A

ca

de

mic

R&

D E

xp

en

dit

ure

s (

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

00

7 D

olla

rs)

University of Minnesota

Top School

Bottom School

Peer Average

Comparative AnalysisHistorical Context

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.0019

85

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

To

tal A

ca

de

mic

R&

D E

xp

en

dit

ure

s (

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

00

7 D

olla

rs)

University of Minnesota

Top School

Bottom School

Peer Average

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.0019

85

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

To

tal A

ca

de

mic

R&

D E

xp

en

dit

ure

s (

Mill

ion

s o

f 2

00

7 D

olla

rs)

University of Minnesota

Top School

Peer Average

= $28M/y -$2M/y $29M/y -$2M/y $14M/y

BUDGETCUT

BUDGETCUT

BUDGETCUT

?

Impact: The Ultimate Metric

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

- Albert Einstein

Impact: PEL Team Conclusions

Measurement of the impact of University research locally,nationally, and inter-nationally is critical in fully illustratingthe University’s stature

Ultimately the importance of our research measurementefforts lies in highlighting the impact of our research on

ourdisciplines, our community, and the world

Capturing impact may well be paramount in fullyillustrating the University’s stature

Impact: Some Great Examples

Sowing the seeds of a biofuel revolution: Professor David Tilman and prairie grasses

Voice to Vision: Professor David Feinberg and responses to genocide

A century of commitment to horticultural research: Professors Bedford and Luby and cold weather hardy varieties

Much more than a business arrangement: Professor Steven Girshick and Rushford Hypersonic

A heartbeat felt far and wide: Professor Doris Taylor and the beating heart

Seeking a better way to treat trauma patients: Professors Andrews and Drewes (UMD) and TamiasynTM

Conclusions

Total R&D expenditures increased nearly 19% between 2004-2007;second-largest growth rate among top 20 public research universities

University research funding is on a positive trajectory

Significant improvement in Shanghai Rankings

The University’s research and scholarship have broad, significantimpact; we must capture impact as an important metric for success

The research enterprise is healthy, but vulnerable

Cuts to the University’s budget correlate with a downturn in researchproductivity

Funding challenges reinforce need to identify areas of synergy, toleverage mutually beneficial approaches and partnerships, and to besmarter and more strategic in resource allocations