The future of academic research -- and the changing nature of private-sector interactions -- sparked debate and prompted recommendations last weekend for strengthening UC Davis' research capabilities. Some 130 faculty, student, staff and alumni leaders participating in the chancellor's fall conference brainstormed how to promote research -- from streamlining the research contract process to boosting National Research Council rankings, building high-quality research space and creating additional research funding opportunities for humanities and social science scholars -- and debated how best to interact with private industry. "Research plays a major role in our planning for the future, in the vision we set for ourselves," Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Robert Grey told conference participants. "The decisions we make in research will have a lot to do in answering who will be our students and will determine who we hire to the faculty. We have to give central attention to the key question, 'What are our priorities?'" Robert Ringel, executive vice president for academic affairs at Purdue University, offered conference-goers a national and historical perspective on the changing nature of research. "It is sobering to observe that, since the early 1980s, for the first time since World War II, company-sponsored research and development began to exceed government-financed R&D," said Ringel. "By 1998, the private sector accounted for 70 percent of national financing of R&D and the public sector only 30 percent." A greater dependency on private funding has led to the rise of the "colleague entrepreneur," Ringel said. "The spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well on our campuses and lives deep in the heart of many of our most valued colleagues. Can we channel their venturesome spirit to the advantage of the university and toward a greater public good?" Of Purdue's 1,900 faculty, some 200 -- including humanists and arts scholars -- are involved in entrepreneurial activities, Ringel said, encouraged by university practices that reward such efforts and guided by clear policies about conflict-of-interest and ownership of intellectual property. "We have our people thinking about where their disciplines are going," Ringel said. "And we have tried to raise the issue [of entrepreneurship] in a very open, positive discussion." Research consortia, tapping the distinct strengths of multiple universities, are "very much in the future," Ringel said, and helped win a $50 million economic development appropriation from the Indiana Legislature to promote university-industry research. Panelists Bruce Jaffee and Carl Keen debated the merits of closer ties with industry. Jaffee, professor of nematology, said he strongly opposed sharing research facilities with industry. "It has something to do with separation of church and state, with minimizing conflict of interest and distinguishing between public and private values." He worried that the university's commitment to critical and skeptical evaluation and to free exchange of information would be compromised by such an arrangement. In the private sector, "information is property," he said, "and you don't give property away." Industry funding would also shape the campus's academic programs, he said. "Do we want corporations to decide which parts of the campus grow and which parts diminish?" Keen, professor of nutrition, said he saw "a lot more advantages than disadvantages to having [private sector] buildings on campus as long as we keep reminding ourselves of the real reason for our being here -- teaching, research and public service." Corporations can fill a growing gap in federal funding, share their intellectual property with university researchers and allow for "a very rapid translation of science into public health and well-being," he said. "We're a wonderful source of inspiration for them and we can also serve as a moral checkpoint," Keen said. Rick Freeman, chair of the applied science department, said the campus "has been dealing with outside funding sources for the last 50 years, mostly the federal government. Somehow we're more comfortable with that." But an agreement with the private sector is much more flexible, he said. "You don't have to agree to anything. Specify what you will and won't do for the money. But you can't change a line in official contracts with any [government] agency." "The real question is what is intrinsically different between the government giving us money and industry giving us money," said Alexandra Navrotsky, interdisciplinary professor of ceramics, Earth and environmental materials science. "By focusing on the differences we can focus on what safeguards we need." Said Scott Hawley, professor of molecular and cellular biology: "It's very important to understand we have a desire to seek the truth and corporations have a desire to seek the bottom line. We have a desire to work together, but without the same goals." Alliances, when properly formulated, are beneficial to the campus, said Peter Rock, dean of the Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. "But we're relatively inexperienced in developing these deals, kind of like an 18-year-old going in to buy a used car. We need to make sure we're not a marginalized subcontractor." Music professor Wayne Slawson said he feared an influx of corporate dollars would exacerbate "the extreme imbalance between the science sides and other sides of UC Davis." Sue Ellen Case, chair of the theatre and dance department, said the "democratic principles" that undergird academia "are quite different from how industry works." Principles to guide private-sector interactions were discussed in break-out groups and will be posted soon with the conference's full report on the chancellor's Web page. "One of the primary purposes of the fall conference is to see a broad perspective on an issue," said Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, concluding the conference. "Your discussions have definitely led you there." The attendees' recommendations will largely fall to Vice Chancellor for Research Kevin Smith for follow-up, but "all of us will have to be engaged in deciding which are viable for follow-up and how to go about doing that," Vanderhoef said.