Universities must become active launchpads for innovation
We are in an era of unprecedented technological advancement. Yet American universities — long considered beacons of innovation — are facing an equally unprecedented crisis of confidence.
The Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a steady erosion of public trust across all pillars of society, with confidence in higher education falling to its lowest level ever. Critics from across the political spectrum increasingly label universities as elitist, self-interested, out-of-touch and unaccountable.
While these criticisms deserve serious attention, the current remedies — especially cutting research funding and laying off young research staff — carry significant risk.
The backbone of America's research and development enterprise is a unique partnership between government and universities, a model with deep historical roots. Since the founding of institutions like MIT in 1861 and the development of the America research university model by Johns Hopkins in 1876, universities have been mandated to advance the nation's 'useful arts and manufactures.' This mission thrives on sustained investment and shared goals — between governments and universities, supported and amplified by philanthropic and industrial partners — shaping a research system that is the envy of the world.
Studies estimate that university-initiated innovation, alongside skilled workforce development, has driven about half of U.S. economic growth since World War II.
This university-government alignment is not simply a driver of prosperity; it is fundamental to American security. Undermining this critical bond jeopardizes our national security and interests. This reliance is clearly seen in the Department of Defense, which depends heavily on university research for advancements shaping the future battlefield, spanning fields like quantum sensors, self-healing materials and transformative aerospace engineering.
The need to strengthen our research universities comes at a moment when, according to a National Academies report, the U.S. 'no longer has a monopoly on the top science.' Other nations are aggressively investing to challenge America's lead in all aspects of research and development. China has massively ramped up research and development funding and now produces science at an unprecedented rate and scale, aiming to dominate sectors like AI, biotech, hypersonics and energy storage. China now nearly equals the U.S. in total research and development expenditures, and its whole-of-nation innovation push means America must run faster, not slower, in supporting science if we are to stay in the race.
The traditional contributions of universities — advancing knowledge through research and patents — remain fundamental to America's economic and national security dynamism. These activities ensure a pipeline of talent and the diffusion of ideas, demonstrated by the fact that only the top 25 U.S. research universities contribute a very large portion of all U.S. university patents and train more first-time inventors than any other sector. However, as annual investment in university research and development climbs past the $100 billion mark, relying solely on these established mechanisms is no longer enough.
To maintain their relevance and continue to support our national security, universities must codify translation and entrepreneurship as a crucial pathway for making a difference. Research labs must move beyond passive spillovers and become active launchpads for new companies that leverage federally funded research.
University research translation is at best a serendipitous process. Making it more systematic represents an enormous opportunity for both more economic growth and better solutions to pressing national priorities. At a time when universities are on trial for being a resource drain, efforts to increase translation activity are desperately needed. We must make sure that the American public hears loud and clear about our focus on real-world impact.
Through a program MIT started five years ago called Proto Ventures, teams are turning breakthroughs made in tech labs into real-world solutions that can help all Americans. Proto Ventures is designed to actively leverage research, much of which is supported by taxpayer dollars, into impactful, sustainable businesses — rather than just hoping it happens.
To build companies from the ground up, we've brought a proactive and comprehensive approach to venture creation. We identify a technological field, industry or strategic challenge that is ripe for exploration. A dedicated small team then secures the agreement of our faculty in the relevant lab or center, and we bring in experienced venture builders. They and the wider Proto Ventures team do the essential work of identifying a robust pipeline of potential opportunities, reducing unsuccessful paths and propelling forward the ones with real potential.
As ideas solidify, we help teams of founders form and eventually leave the university and start to grow. In that way, Proto Ventures builds companies to change the world within a framework of shared interest with the funders (often the government) and focused on problems that matter to our shared future.
Programs like Proto Ventures show that universities aren't simply about education and research, although those are of central importance; they can also prioritize and configure entrepreneurial processes to increase real-world impact and directly contribute to national security and economic growth.
By bridging the gap between groundbreaking research and tangible outcomes, universities can address their critics, strengthen the nation and focus on their highest purpose: advancing human progress through knowledge and innovation.
Gene R. Keselman is a lecturer at MIT School of Management, the executive director of MIT Mission Innovation Experimental and managing director of MIT's Proto Ventures. He is also a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Dame Fiona Murray is the William Porter professor of entrepreneurship and associate dean of innovation at the MIT School of Management. She is vice chair of the NATO Innovation Fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When Will Kingsoft Cloud Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:KC) Turn A Profit?
Kingsoft Cloud Holdings Limited () is possibly approaching a major achievement in its business, so we would like to shine some light on the company. Kingsoft Cloud Holdings Limited provides cloud services to businesses and organizations primarily in China. On 31 December 2024, the US$3.3b market-cap company posted a loss of CN¥2.0b for its most recent financial year. As path to profitability is the topic on Kingsoft Cloud Holdings' investors mind, we've decided to gauge market sentiment. In this article, we will touch on the expectations for the company's growth and when analysts expect it to become profitable. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. Kingsoft Cloud Holdings is bordering on breakeven, according to the 11 American IT analysts. They expect the company to post a final loss in 2026, before turning a profit of CN¥352m in 2027. The company is therefore projected to breakeven around 2 years from now. How fast will the company have to grow each year in order to reach the breakeven point by 2027? Working backwards from analyst estimates, it turns out that they expect the company to grow 97% year-on-year, on average, which is extremely buoyant. If this rate turns out to be too aggressive, the company may become profitable much later than analysts predict. We're not going to go through company-specific developments for Kingsoft Cloud Holdings given that this is a high-level summary, however, bear in mind that by and large a high forecast growth rate is not unusual for a company that is currently undergoing an investment period. View our latest analysis for Kingsoft Cloud Holdings One thing we would like to bring into light with Kingsoft Cloud Holdings is its relatively high level of debt. Typically, debt shouldn't exceed 40% of your equity, which in Kingsoft Cloud Holdings' case is 98%. Note that a higher debt obligation increases the risk in investing in the loss-making company. There are too many aspects of Kingsoft Cloud Holdings to cover in one brief article, but the key fundamentals for the company can all be found in one place – Kingsoft Cloud Holdings' company page on Simply Wall St. We've also put together a list of pertinent factors you should further examine: Valuation: What is Kingsoft Cloud Holdings worth today? Has the future growth potential already been factored into the price? The intrinsic value infographic in our free research report helps visualize whether Kingsoft Cloud Holdings is currently mispriced by the market. Management Team: An experienced management team on the helm increases our confidence in the business – take a look at who sits on Kingsoft Cloud Holdings's board and the CEO's background. Other High-Performing Stocks: Are there other stocks that provide better prospects with proven track records? Explore our free list of these great stocks here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
an hour ago
In the Arizona desert, a farm raising fish raises questions about water use
DATELAND, Ariz. -- Storks scatter, white against blue water, as Dan Mohring's pickup truck rumbles down the dirt road. He's towing a trailer full of ground-up beef, chicken, fish and nutrient bits behind him, ready to be shot out of a cannon into the ponds below. It's time to feed the fish. Mohring fires up the machine and the food flies out in a rainbow arc. Then the water comes alive. Hundreds of thrashing, gobbling barramundi wiggle their way to the surface, all fighting for a piece. Until, in a few months, they will become food themselves. In the desert of landlocked Arizona, where the Colorado River crisis has put water use under a microscope, Mainstream Aquaculture has a fish farm where it's growing the tropical species barramundi, also known as Asian sea bass, for American restaurants. Mainstream sees it as a sustainable alternative to ocean-caught seafood. They say chefs and conscious consumers like that the food has a shorter distance to travel, eliminating some of the pollution that comes from massive ships that move products around the world. And they and some aquaculture experts argue it's efficient to use the water twice, since the nutrient-rich leftovers can irrigate crops like Bermuda grass sold for livestock feed. 'We're in the business of water,' said Matt Mangan, head of Australia-based Mainstream's American business. 'We want to be here in 20 years', 30 years' time.' But some experts question whether growing fish on a large scale in an arid region can work without high environmental costs. That question comes down to what people collectively decide is a good use of water. In Arizona, some places manage water more aggressively than others. But the whole state is dealing with the impacts of climate change, which is making the region drier and water only more precious. The farm uses groundwater, not Colorado River water. It's a nonrenewable resource, and like mining, different people and industries have different philosophies about whether it should be extracted. 'As long as groundwater is treated as an open resource in these rural parts of Arizona, they're susceptible to new industries coming in and using the groundwater for that industry,' said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University's Morrison Institute. Some scientists believe aquaculture can play a role in protecting wild ocean ecosystems from overfishing. And it might play at least a small role in smoothing any supply problems that result from the Trump administration's tariffs on imports from dozens of countries, including those that send the U.S. about 80% of its seafood, per the United States Department of Agriculture. In the greenhouses at University of Arizona professor Kevin Fitzsimmons' lab in Tucson, tilapia circle idly in tanks that filter down into tubs full of mussels and floating patches of collard greens and lettuce. Fitzsimmons mentored the student who started the tilapia farm eventually bought by Mainstream about three years ago where they now raise barramundi. 'I don't think desert agriculture is going away," he said. 'Obviously, we want to do it as water-efficient as possible." But not everyone agrees it's possible. 'Artificial ponds in the desert are stupid,' said Jay Famiglietti, a professor at ASU and director of science for the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative. He worried about heavy water losses to evaporation. Mangan says that evaporation hasn't been an issue so much as the loss of heat in the wintertime. That has required pumping more water since its warmth when it arrives at the surface helps keep the barramundi cozy. But Mangan says they've been improving pond design to retain heat better and have found, after the last year of research and development, that they can cut their water requirement by about half as a result. Plus, he argues, the water coming out of the fish ponds is "essentially liquid fertilizer," and though it's slightly salty, they use it for crops that can tolerate it, like Bermuda grass dairy cows can eat. But that's supporting the cattle industry, which contributes more than its share of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, Famiglietti said. 'Doing two suboptimal things doesn't make it better,' he said. Purple flowers sprout alongside paddle wheels. Fish bones crunch underfoot. The faint odor of brackish water and ammonia catches in the breeze. Without groundwater, none of it would be possible. Some farmers in Arizona rely on water from the Colorado River, but many others use well water to irrigate crops like alfalfa for the dairy industry or the lettuce, cucumbers and melons shipped nationwide year-round. Arizona has seven areas around the state where groundwater is rigorously managed. Dateland doesn't fall into one of those, so the only rule that really governs it is a law saying if you land own there, you can pump a 'reasonable' amount of groundwater, said Rhett Larson, who teaches water law at ASU. What might be considered 'reasonable' depends from crop to crop, and there's really no precedent for aquaculture, an industry that hasn't yet spread commercially statewide. Using numbers provided by Mainstream, Porter calculated that the fish farm would demand a 'very large amount' of water, on par with a big ranch or potentially even more than some suburbs of Phoenix. And she noted that although the water use is being maximized by using it twice, it's still depleting the aquifer. When the company scoped out Arizona to expand, Mangan said they didn't see nearly the same kinds of regulations as back in Australia. As part of its growth strategy, Mainstream is also hoping to work with other farmers in the area so more can use nutrient-rich fish pond wastewater to produce hay. They say a few have expressed interest. The seafood industry needs to reduce its reliance on catching small wild fish to feed bigger farmed ones that humans eat, said Pallab Sarker, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies sustainability in the aquaculture industry. He said seabirds and mammals rely on small species like anchovies and mackerel commonly used in fish meal. 'We should not rely on ocean fish to grow fish for aquaculture to meet the demand for humans,' Sarker said. Mainstream gets its fish feed from two suppliers, Skretting and Star Milling, but Mangan and Mohring said they didn't know for certain where those suppliers got their base ingredients from. Fitzsimmons, of the University of Arizona, also pointed out that between pollution, overfishing and oceanfront development for recreation, the commercial fishing industry had already been facing problems. He doesn't think that Trump's moves this spring to open up marine protected areas for commercial fishing will improve that situation the way aquaculture could. 'We can't keep hunting and gathering from the ocean,' Fitzsimmons said. ___ ___
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
How much NASA spends on science in Utah
NASA spends an average of $11 million annually in Utah on scientific missions, per data from The Planetary Society, a pro-space nonprofit. Why it matters: NASA's science efforts bear the brunt of cuts to the agency in the Trump administration's proposed budget, which would slash science funding by nearly 50% to $3.9 billion. The big picture: Science represents roughly 30% of NASA's budget, supporting missions like space telescopes, robotic probes and satellites that gather data about Earth's changing climate. While not always as headline-grabbing as human spaceflight, NASA's science activity has greatly enhanced our scientific understanding of both Earth and our celestial neighborhood. By the numbers: NASA supported 2,375 jobs in Utah and generated $486.6 million in economic output and $17.2 million in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2023, per a state report. Over 60 suppliers in the state have contributed to the agency's Artemis moon exploration program. The intrigue: The proposed cuts come as some Utah officials want to position the state as a leader in space innovation. Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill in March appropriating $1 million to study the feasibility of a spaceport in Utah for potential space exploration. Zoom out: California (about $3 billion), Maryland ($2 billion) and Texas ($614 million) saw the most average annual NASA science spending across fiscal 2022-2024, the data shows. Zoom in: Missions on the chopping block in President Trump's NASA budget include the Mars Sample Return, an ambitious joint American-European plan to collect Martian soil samples and bring them to Earth for further study. Nearly 20 active science missions would be canceled in total, the Planetary Society says, representing more than $12 billion in taxpayer investments. What they're saying: A chief concern, Planetary Society chief of space policy Casey Dreier tells Axios, is that already paid-for probes and telescopes would be deactivated even though they're still delivering valuable data. "They keep returning great science for the very fractional cost to keep the lights on. And a lot of these will just be turned off and left to tumble in space," Dreier says
