4

Town Hall II, Day 1: True Partnerships through the Research Ecosystem and Equitable and Synergistic Partnerships

At the start of the second town hall, held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 22 and 23, 2023, committee chair Dr. Oscar Barton, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. (Morgan State University), welcomed participants. He reviewed the agenda for the second town hall with its theme of building true partnerships between Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agencies, institutions of higher education, industry, and other stakeholders. The focus of the second town hall centered on the systems and components necessary to develop equitable partnerships with industry, non-minority institutions, and federal agencies with Minority Institutions (MIs) and the development of sustainable collaborations among MIs.

IGNITING THE DEFENSE RESEARCH ECOSYSTEM

In the first session, moderator Melvin Greer, Ph.D. (Intel Corporation), asked panelists to provide an overview about the stakeholders they consider relevant to a high-functioning research environment. The session spotlighted partnerships that have led to productive activities in research and development (R&D) and the matriculation of students into careers within the defense R&D environment. Participants were Victor McCrary, Ph.D. (University of the District of Columbia [UDC]), Santosh Devasia, Ph.D. (University of Washington), and Thomas Tubon, Ph.D. (BioMADE). Dr. Greer noted it is important to understand how institutions develop an ecosystem in order to support students in their defense or other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers.

Three Examples of Research and Development Partnerhsips

University of the District of Columbia

Dr. McCrary noted that his work at UDC intersects with his role as vice chair of the National Science Board through a focus on research experiences for students and faculty to develop talent. As noted in Chapter 3, UDC is on track to become an R2 institution by 2024. Building the defense research ecosystem at UDC has involved buy-in from top leadership, with the Office of University Research as the nexus point. He stressed the importance of “being in the room” to understand trends and opportunities and to ensure equal partnerships, promoting defense-industry research initiatives internally and externally, and following the philosophy that there are “no permanent enemies or friends, just permanent interests.”

UDC has partnerships with three University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) (at Pennsylvania State University; University of Maryland, College Park; and Johns Hopkins University); is developing activities with the U.S. Navy, National Security Agency, and U.S. Army; and is part of the new Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Science and Technology (S&T) Council (see Chapter 3).

Dr. McCrary offered several reasons why a research ecosystem may not succeed, including if the vice president for research lacks strategic authority to make and close deals; there is a lack of cultural competency; the pay-off versus time and effort does not materialize; expectations are not balanced; and transactional, versus transformational, relationships are formed. MSIs offer the ability to produce a skilled workforce that can receive security clearances, which are needed in many opportunities in the CHIPS + Science Act and in DOD work.¹ He noted several provisions of the CHIPS + Science Act of particular interest for HBCUs and MSIs: University Technology Centers; increased funding for community colleges; authorization of increased funding for the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) (see Chapter 5 for more detail); and targeting of emerging research institutions to increase research capacity. In terms of workforce, Dr. McCrary stressed that talent is needed from the “missing millions,” particularly Latin and Black talent. Growth of a skilled technical workforce is critical. HBCUs are ready for defense investment in terms of talent and innovation, he emphasized.

Boeing Advanced Research Center at the University of Washington

Dr. Devasia explained that the Boeing Advanced Research Center (BARC) at the University of Washington was put together over a period of 10 years and is an example of how to build and maintain a relationship with industry. The idea emerged from a university strategic planning effort to focus on the unique strengths of the region, including its port and industrial base, with Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, and other companies headquartered in the Seattle region. The question was how to leverage this high-tech industrial base.

Dr. Devasia commented that industry’s traditional funding model is to provide money, maybe receive some intellectual property (IP), and provide

___________________

¹ For more information, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4346.

internships or other opportunities for students. In contrast, BARC is a co-located effort dedicated to the transformation of manufacturing through development of advanced robotics, data analytics, and tools safety. BARC provides Boeing access and formation of relationships with undergraduate and graduate students. High-impact collaborative research projects are mentored by Boeing engineers. Students go on-site to Boeing, and Boeing engineers also come to campus. According to Dr. Devasia, universities tend to focus on fundamental work with low technology readiness levels, but this applied research has had incredible impact because students learn by doing and they are highly engaged.

It took a few years to figure out how the university and Boeing could best work together, Dr. Devasia explained. Issues included who owns the IP, alignment of research needs, and different funding cycles (fiscal year versus university calendar). Solutions that worked include prepackaged IP with a fixed cost; alignment by leveraging Boeing funding with other sources; and having a mix of students (bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate) on each project to facilitate academy and industry needs. Professional master’s program students have also worked well in this setting.

BioMADE

Dr. Tubon agreed with the challenges identified by previous presenters, and noted they often surface with little movement to be addressed. He suggested that nonprofits and similar entities could bring different stakeholders together. BioMADE was launched in 2021 as a design and manufacturing ecosystem to bring together industry and educational institutions involved in bioindustrial manufacturing. Different sectors come together for an all-hands approach to promote applied research and commercialization. BioMADE embraces a multifaceted approach to realize the value that each stakeholder brings and overcome the breaks in the chain to provide additional support. He noted BioMADE rests on three pillars: technology and innovation; education and workforce development (his area of focus); and social dimensions (safety, security, sustainability, and social responsibility).

Discussion

Dr. Greer described an ecosystem as a complex network of interconnected pieces that operate seamlessly, and he asked participants to apply this concept to research. Dr. McCrary pointed to the need for a strategy to

develop a research ecosystem, for example, to impact the community and to align with the National Science Board 2030 strategy for global leadership. This alignment leads to steps to pursue, he said. For example, UDC has great research labs but never had patents, so he brought in consultants to develop commercialization capacity. It is important to update policies and procedures and to engage in constant dialogue. Universities must recognize faculty culture but also the culture of funders related to timelines and other needs.

Dr. Greer agreed that stakeholders have different views about value, timelines, and measurements. As an example of different groups working together, Dr. Devasia suggested the ARM (Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing) Institute, which is funded by the secretary of defense and is part of the Manufacturing USA network.² Dr. Tubon concurred that the ARM Institute and other manufacturing institutes are a great model to bring stakeholders together. Funded projects can support research, education, and other programs for systems-level change. As an example, BioMADE supports about 50 projects, such as one in the Appalachian Highlands to support rural communities to engage in technology. As other examples, Dr. McCrary offered the Regional Innovation Hubs in the NSF TIP Directorate, as well as its Advanced Technological Education programs.

Dr. Greer echoed that building an ecosystem requires a central person who is primarily responsible to understand national priorities and align mechanisms with the desired end state. Dr. Tubon commented that it is important to interpret ecosystems as dynamic to move forward. He noted that many workforce development programs are pushing the envelope. Alone, they have done a great job, but in collaboration with others and breaking down silos, much more can be achieved, he posited.

Dr. Greer asked about situations where an ecosystem fails to ignite. Dr. Devasia suggested that the reason often comes down to different cultures and viewpoints. “It is a work in progress,” he suggested, and noted that ecosystems may take many years of discussions and start with small steps before larger-scale interactions. Dr. McCrary commented that another impact when an ecosystem fails to ignite is a lack of trust that may cross over to other opportunities. Potential partners may become more risk-averse, which sets the ecosystem back and harms the community at large. The question to keep in mind is whether a particular model is the right fit for you and your system, and it may be a combination of several models, noted Dr. Tubon.

___________________

² For more information on the ARM Institute, see https://arminstitute.org/.

When asked by Dr. Greer for one factor that institutions must do to create and sustain ecosystems, Dr. Devasia underscored leadership and the willingness to see the long term. Dr. Tubon urged participation with manufacturing institutes around the country. Dr. McCrary pointed to working with local chambers of commerce and other leaders to understand on-the-ground realities.

ARTICULATING THE VALUE PROPOSITION FOR EQUITABLE PARTNERSHIPS

Transitioning from the first panel, Dr. Barton drew on Dr. McCrary’s comment about the importance of “being at the table.” That said, he continued, “We may be at the table, but is that enough for strong partnerships and alliances?” Three panelists shared what equitable partnerships could look like: Eric Adolphe, Esq. (Forward Edge-AI, Inc.), Christina Deckard (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Biotechnology), and Robert St. Amant, Ph.D. (DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory).

Context

The presenters briefly introduced their work to explain their perspectives about partnerships. Forward Edge-AI is an African American–owned small business that focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for defense, national security, and public safety, Mr. Adolphe explained. Since its inception, the company has worked with seven HBCUs and MSIs on Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) awards for DOD and NSF. Forward Edge-AI works with HBCUs and MSIs to build research capacity by leveraging these SBIRs and STTRs, and they fielded the first minority-owned, deep tech HBCU team that has been awarded Phase 1, 2, and 3 SBIRs. In undertaking these engagements, Mr. Adolphe commented, an important thing that comes out is that faculty, especially at HBCUs, consider themselves working at teaching institutions devoted to instruction, so there can be some tension between that vision and the DOD and private-sector missions. Students may not understand how they play into the mission of the nation or see the fruits of their labor, and he suggested finding ways to foster their sense of value in going from lab to market.

After a career as a Navy civilian scientist, Ms. Deckard now provides contract support to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Research and Engineering in Biotechnology, as the Biotechnology Office Education and Workforce Development lead. Biotech is a critical technology, and education and workforce are key, she said. She clarified that her ideas are her own and not representing DOD or her contractor, but hoped the town hall conversations can lead to better engagement.

Dr. St. Amant spent 20 years in the computer science department at North Carolina State University before joining the Army Research Lab. He was first involved in intramural research, but moved to manage extramural research last year. He is in charge of the Knowledge Systems Program and works with the Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT), which is a UARC located at the University of Southern California (USC).

Building on Partnerships

Ms. Deckard reminded the group that DOD has a number of programs that aim to form partnerships, such as the HBCU Centers of Excellence. While they are important ways for DOD to work with HBCUs, she acknowledged there is usually limited partnering. She commented that there are many other opportunities at NSF, DOD, and other agencies that she has less familiarity with even after a long career with DOD, which she noted shows the need to shed more light on them. For example, she called attention to NSF’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers as an interesting model to provide value to all stakeholders (see Figure 4-1). Industry has access to talent, research results, and IP, as well as leveraged research dollars. Universities gain funding, industry insights, and student placements. Government gains leveraged research dollars, networks, and training. In any successful partnership, she stressed, each stakeholder must gain value, and it is more than just “checking a box.”

Dr. Barton highlighted the theme of value to each partner. Mr. Adolphe noted the value added for his company is a straight line: “We are conducting research, developing products and IP, sharing that IP with the HBCUs and MSIs involved, and we want to monetize it.” As a best practice, he pointed to a cooperative research agreement that required bringing in an HBCU partner. After initial research under the agreement, they applied for SBIRs, and have three MSIs developing new technology for DOD and for the commercial market. He noted that HBCU students are included in the IP and are named in the patent. Focusing on benefits to students, Mr. Adolphe noted that many students would never have considered the

concept of IP as a path to economic success. Projecting out, students who become entrepreneurs and business owners can benefit their alma maters, Dr. Barton commented, while Mr. Adolphe added that universities can also gain residual income from the IP.

Dr. St. Amant looked at the value added for the Army through the ICT UARC. The Army wanted an institute to improve simulation and saw the concentration of expertise and interest in filming and gaming in Southern California. For ICT and USC, the support raises visibility to DOD and other government agencies, which is good for the university, researchers, and students.

Ms. Deckard urged finding ways to compile good ideas and programs as best practices and articulate what the benefits are. “How can we message what the right thing is and make it so universities want to participate? It’s important to pull this together and have the story,” she said.

In interacting with emerging technology, Mr. Adolphe said his company looks at topics of interest posted by DOD and others. He reaches out to partners in HBCUs and MSIs to see who has expertise in the topics to pursue opportunities. He noted this works efficiently because his company has already established trust with its partners. Looking at disruptive technologies, Dr. St. Amant opined that academic researchers have more freedom to pursue ideas that industry may not be able to solve and government may not be agile enough to undertake. Ms. Deckard said that DOD is looking at a wide range of biotechnology applications, with many areas of exploration such as fuels and fabrics. She suggested finding ways to get the word out how HBCUs and MSIs can participate.

Dr. Barton asked about equitable partnerships across university types with changing student demographics. Mr. Adolphe responded that Forward Edge-AI tries to reflect the communities where they are, and students working on Forward Edge-AI projects reflect the demographics of their communities. Dr. St. Amant noted the benefit when students go on to work for industry or the government. He recalled the usefulness of an Industrial Advisory Council set up at North Carolina State University, many members of which were alumni. They understood the needs of both industry and the university and provided feedback in both directions. Ms. Deckard underscored the need for respecting the demographic composition of each region of the country. Regional hubs can provide a way to instill diversity as the norm in terms of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition, as well as diversity of thought.

Dr. Barton commented that NSF proposals are structured to address intellectual merit and broader impacts, and he asked if equitable partnerships could be considered as part of a broader impact in this context. Mr. Adolphe commented that when he has served as an NSF peer reviewer, he looks for how broader impacts will move the needle in the specific S&T area being proposed, but not all applicants pay attention to this. He added when he submits a proposal to NSF, he addresses broader impacts that are measurable and hopes competitors are doing the same. Dr. St. Amant underscored the need for diversity in development teams to avoid bias, for example, in AI applications. Ms. Deckard urged being intentional about what is meant by broader impact. “Let’s be clear about the purpose of a partnership,” she said. An outcome could be that R1s and R2s are mentoring universities and colleges so that they are prepared to take the lead in the future, she suggested. Mr. Adolphe strongly agreed with the need for capacity building in partnerships, not just transactional agreements to meet a proposal requirement.

Returning to the issue of outcomes and deliverables, Mr. Adolphe commented that he held four jobs as an undergraduate, including security guard, loan processor, package loader, and engineering intern at the Federal Aviation Administration. This latter, which was a true passion and exposed him to the mission of public safety, paid the least. “As far as equity is concerned, the outcome is to encourage students to go into STEM public service, but there needs to be an alignment about why it is important,” he said. Ms. Deckard praised the value of internships, but noted many are unpaid or barely paid. A student who must earn money cannot access them, which is where equity comes in.

Dr. Barton commented that in addition to internships, distributed experiences across a student’s pathway can build careers. Mr. Adolphe said relationships should be deep and enduring. He suggested a role for “sherpas”: people with domain and technical expertise, perhaps retired professionals, who can serve as navigators for institutions to build their research capacity. Institutions that have been doing this work for decades have a built-in advantage, he commented, and it will take a while for others to catch up. Ms. Deckard suggested mentorship at different levels. There is not one silver bullet, but many good ideas that the whole community can draw on to make a difference, she suggested. Dr. Barton concluded by underscoring the need for transformational, not transactional, relationships.

MODELS FOR SYNERGISTIC PARTNERSHIPS

Workshop committee member Bryn Adams, Ph.D. (DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory), chaired a panel with three individuals who have developed synergistic partnerships in a range of settings: Kelly Freidenfelds, Ph.D. (Princeton University), Robert Shepard, Ph.D. (The Shepard Institute, LLC), and Aaron Wecksler, Ph.D. (Genentech).

Princeton Alliance for Collaborative Research and Innovation

Dr. Freidenfelds explained the Princeton Alliance for Collaborative Research and Innovation (PACRI) is a new initiative to promote research collaboration between Princeton and HBCU faculty. The first five HBCUs to participate are Howard University, Jackson State University, Spelman College, Prairie View A&M University, and University of Maryland Eastern Shore, which were identified in concert with the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Through the program, Princeton and HBCU faculty co-submit proposals that are reviewed by reviewers from the HBCUs and Princeton. The research is funded by Princeton. There has been a strong response in engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

Dr. Freidenfelds works with a liaison at each school to distribute RFPs (Request for Proposals), do outreach, help with matchmaking, and recruit reviewers. The reviewers look for evidence of collaboration that would benefit researchers, students, the field, and the institutions. The funding is flexible, but common uses are for salary and course release time for the HBCU faculty, funding for graduate or postdoc students, and travel. The first 10 projects span a wide variety of topics, from coastal resilience to deepfake detection to energy storage. PACRI’s central core is collaborative research that will make an impact and be innovative, she said. The hope is not only conducting the initial research but also the building of authentic relationships between Princeton and HBCU partners.

Science and Engineering Alliance

Dr. Shepard raised three issues as he described the Science and Engineering Alliance (SEA): how to ensure the equitable distribution of resources in alliances; inequities that may arise due to an imbalance; and how to bring others into an alliance, particularly 2-year colleges. SEA began in 1990 as a partnership between four HBCUs and the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) with the mission to broaden participation in the federal R&D enterprise so that the institutions could participate in large-scale projects and produce a globally competitive workforce. SEA had a board with a stand-alone office in Washington, DC. The backbone, he said, was an identification of combined and complementary technical core strengths in such areas as climate and environmental change, geographic information systems, biotechnology and biosciences, and computer and information sciences. The peer-review process was used to guide this selection.

An executive director reduced faculty workload. Over the first few months, the director’s task was to educate federal agencies about what SEA could offer. Large solicitations relevant to the SEA institutions were distilled to three-page abstracts. The Washington office helped ensure that submitted proposals addressed all requirements. For each proposal, the lead institution was identified by who had the dominant strength given the specific technical area. SEA’s focus on inclusion and access was reflected in the number of projects funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and many other public, industry, and philanthropic sources, Dr. Shepard said. He called attention to two that spanned the HBCUs’ technical areas: a DOE infrastructure grant and a summer internship program from LLNL. He also highlighted a Faculty Fellowship program, supported by LLNL, which was a competitive program that ran for 5 years. He noted the schools had a stake in the success; in this case, they paid for the adjunct faculty who took over the teaching during the fellowship.

For nearly 25 years, SEA engaged more than 500 HBCU and MSI faculty and garnered $350 million in new research and education funding, held four mentoring workshops, and introduced more than 400 Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Women-Owned Businesses to federal opportunities. From 1990 to 2009, the four SEA institutions totaled over $1.01 billion in combined federal support, he said. While SEA was mostly funded by LLNL, each school also paid dues based on performance.

Genentech

Dr. Wecksler spoke about interactions at Genentech with government and institutions. He said he sees relationships across sectors as a triad with government generally supporting fundamental research and industry generally funding more applied research. He noted that Genentech and other companies rely on the academic sector to understand and leverage

emerging technologies. One example in biotechnology is understanding the mechanisms behind protein-based medicines, which is required by the Food and Drug Administration for drug approvals. Understanding higher-order structure is particularly complex, and a solution for Genentech was to partner with a government-funded lab, initially the Brookhaven National Laboratory. A technology called hydroxyl radical footprinting was developed after several decades of exploration and with government, industry, and university collaboration.

Genentech has several programs to foster future scientists at different levels. Internships and co-ops are available for undergraduates, a Pharmaceutical Development Rotational Program involves recent bachelor’s and master’s graduates, and he co-leads a postdoctoral program. To build underrepresented engagement, Dr. Wecksler said Genentech partners with Hispanic-Serving Institutions and HBCUs, as well as participates in conferences of professional societies that reach underrepresented students.

Discussion

Dr. Adams asked how to ensure the equitable distribution of resources, when in some cases, equitable does not mean equal. Dr. Shepard said these issues must be discussed at the onset of any partnership or alliance. Peer review cannot be dismissed, but it is necessary to consider how to involve weaker participants. One solution is to bring opportunities to campuses to strengthen their programs. SEA looked for solicitations that fit the technical areas of the schools with less experience and made them the lead. He pointed out the institutions did not have the same technical expertise so they could complement, not compete with, each other. SEA also focused on junior faculty and instrumentation needed for the research.

When asked about involving other institutions, Dr. Freidenfelds explained that PACRI hopes to expand but began with a proof of concept with five HBCUs based on UNCF input. She observed that academia is decentralized, and the aim is relationships to put researchers on a path to the same goal, such as joint papers, student exchanges, grant applications, or IP.

Asked for thoughts on ways to ensure and address the distribution of resources in partnerships, Dr. Wecksler commented that the Bay Area, where Genentech is located, has a number of universities. He said it is important to be an ally for those that are not the most dominant in the area so they can build capacity. Dr. Freidenfelds said she hopes Princeton is listening and supporting as best it can. She noted as an R1, Princeton can help

make connections and bring partners in. Dr. Shepard said he represented a set of institutions that “are always on the hunt” in looking for resources. He has spent his career trying to convince national labs and agencies about the talent at HBCUs. He expressed hope that those that have the resources can share them.