<p>What’s with the * after JHU?</p>
<p>" *The Johns Hopkins University includes the Applied Physics Laboratory, with $778 million, $845 million, and $978 million in total R&D expenditures in FY 200709, respectively. "</p>
<p>^ The Applied Physics Laboratory is basically a federal government R&D operation, administered by JHU but not considered an academic unit of JHU, and not located on JHU’s campus. It does both classified and unclassified research & development for the Department of Defense, NASA, Dept of Homeland Security, and the intelligence agencies. APL accounts for a little over half of JHU’s research total. There are always questions about whether to include the APL in JHU’s figure, since it’s such a unique thing. The NSF finesses this by including APL expenditures in JHU’s total but distinguishing it with an asterisk.</p>
<p>So in other words, Michigan is REALLY the top university in the U.S. in terms of R&D spending. I get it now.</p>
<p>Wow! Michigan’s research expenditures jumped by 15% from FY 2008 to FY 2009, topping $1 billion and making it the second university ever to record a $1 billion+ figure (if you include APL spending in JHU’s total; if not, Michigan’s the first). So much for hawkette’s confident prediction of Michigan’s demise as a great research university.</p>
<p>Four Big Ten schools and three UCs in the top 10. Five Big Ten schools and five UCs in the top 20. The Ivies are sort of slackers when it comes to big science; only Penn (#12) and Cornell (#16) make the top 20.</p>
<p>I wish they separate MEDICAL from S&E. Look at UCSF; it doesn’t really have engineering or sciences (non-medical) yet it’s way up there solely because of its medical research. Most undergrads and even the faculty that teach them don’t really benefit from the medical research.</p>
<p>With the addition of the NCRC, Michigan is going to continue being a goliath in the world of acacemic research. </p>
<p>[North</a> Campus Research Complex :: University of Michigan](<a href=“http://www.umresearchgrowth.org/]North”>http://www.umresearchgrowth.org/)</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the infamous Business Week article which quotes Drew Faust as making one of the most arrogant statements ever made by a university president: </p>
<p>“As for the many lesser universities likely to lose market share, she adds, they would be wise ‘to really emphasize social science or humanities and have science endeavors that are not as ambitious’ as those of Harvard and its peers.”</p>
<p>[News:</a> Quick Takes: Big 10 Provosts vs. Drew Faust, Student Turnout Up in New Hampshire, Earmarks Are Back, 3,850 Denied In-State Tuition in Arizona, Fresno State Adds 2 Women’s Teams, NCAA Punishes Prairie View, BBC Exposes Dubious University - Insid](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/09/qt]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/09/qt)</p>
<p>
“In fiscal year 2010, which ended June 30, U-M research expenditures rose another 12 percent to $1.14 billion.” [New</a> federal rankings: U-M first in research spending at public universities](<a href=“http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8005]New”>http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8005)</p>
<p>Leave it to the government to find it necessary to put a positive twist to reporting what mostly amounts to the waste of financial resources. </p>
<p>And to this forum to never run out of the people who find it a cause for celebration. </p>
<p>Carry on!</p>
<p>
<em>citation needed</em></p>
<p>Yeah, Stanford only wasted $700 million. Pikers. You do know most of that research money goes for medical research and energy/agriculture related research. Yeah, that’s a big waste. Just shoot them when they get sick and let them eat cake. And they can walk to the doctor and use a mule to plow just like in the old days.</p>
<p>It’s not a waste for certain, but I have firsthand experience in how uninsightful NSF reviewers can be in choosing what to fund. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard of someone doing research in area X and spinning it so that they can get funding from a certain “solicitation”, as requests for grant proposals they are called.</p>
<p>Probably most people working in academia do really lousy work that shouldn’t be funded. However, it’s apparently too hard to distinguish between good and bad researchers and so we put up with a lot of waste to fund a few really good ideas.</p>
<p>NSF is a relatively minor funder compared with NIH (15% vs 65% or so)</p>
<p>Well, NSF was just an example since I have the most experience with that organization. I can’t imagine NIH has more strict funding standards (at least as far as intellectual merit goes)</p>
<p>Here are just a few of the things research scientists at the University of Minnesota are currently “wasting” government money on: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Finding ways to resist the virulent fungal wheat virus that is threatening the world’s wheat crop, which if unchecked could create a global famine.</p></li>
<li><p>Assessing and devising ways to combat the vulnerability of the nation’s food supply to attack by intentional contamination with biological or chemical agents.</p></li>
<li><p>Developing new and more effective methods to prevent, treat, and cure both Type I and Type II diabetes.</p></li>
<li><p>Researching new stem cell therapies for brain injuries, diseases, and disorders, including traumatic brain injuries, stroke, and Parkinson’s Disease.</p></li>
<li><p>Developing new therapies to treat and repair diseased or damaged skin using stem cells from bone marrow.</p></li>
<li><p>In collaboration with the Mayo Clinic, conducting path-breaking biotechnology research on new treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease, various cancers, heart disease, infectious diseases, muscle diseases, and more. </p></li>
<li><p>Identifying the most effective means to combat insecticide-resistant strains of bedbugs that baffle the pest control industry, with infestations reported throughout much of the country. </p></li>
<li><p>Identifying the molecular basis for hormone action, basic scientific research that will establish the foundation for subsequent applied research into more effective treatments for hormone-related diseases.</p></li>
<li><p>Developing an angioplasty-like device for the minimally invasive treatment of chronic sinus infections—along with dozens of other biomedical devices developed by university researchers, often in collaboration with Minnesota’s 500+ medical device manufacturing firms. </p></li>
<li><p>Developing new biomaterials for drug delivery, medical device coatings, and tissue engineering.</p></li>
<li><p>Developing high-efficiency solar cells with potential efficiencies up to twice the level of current solar cells by using “quantum dots” only a few nanometers wide, slowing the loss of energy as heat and allowing the capture of “hot” electrons as additional electricity flow.</p></li>
<li><p>In collaboration with the Department of Energy’s Fermilab near Chicago, conducting basic scientific research on the mass and oscillations of neutrinos, tiny subatomic particles that may hold the key to basic unresolved questions about the origins of the universe (e.g., the so-far unexplained disappearance of antimatter) and the deep structures and processes of sub-atomic physics.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Yup, money down a rat-hole, without a doubt, xiggi.</p>
<p>Impressive list, Clinton!</p>
<p>Now, how about offering a similar list going back to the decade from 1990 through 2000 that shows tangible results and ROI?</p>
<p>For that xiggi, perhaps you can look at patent revenue…</p>
<p>Berkeley + Berkeley’s Med school (aka UCSF) comes in second with 1.6 billion. If you also added LBNL, LLNL and LANL it would easily come out on top.</p>