Lucas Pollock’s commentary (“If we’re going to sell out, let’s try a little harder,” ODE Nov. 27, 2006) contained factual errors and misinterpretations and as a result, did not do justice to the University of Oregon’s strong programs in research and technology transfer.
Universities are not configured as for-profit business ventures, nor are their research programs powered by student tuition. Research at major U.S. institutions is predominantly funded by federal agencies through open and rigorous competition based on merit. Pollock wrote that such funding is falling and “the private sector is picking up the slack.” In fact, the National Science Foundation reports that private-sector funding of academic R&D has fallen for five consecutive years and pales in comparison to federal research dollars.
While it’s simply not true that technology transfer offices are “examples of greed and unethical behavior,” perhaps Pollock’s most off-the-mark claim was that the UO has “dwindling national credibility” and doesn’t stack up with similarly sized public research universities. In fact, sponsored research at the University of Oregon has grown dramatically in recent years, especially noteworthy in light of the dwindling state investment in higher education.
Pollock specifically compared the UO’s technology licensing income with University of Washington’s. UW is a “mega” university that includes a prominent medical school and engineering program. When performance is equalized dollar-to-dollar, however, UO’s technology transfer return on research investment is twice that of UW’s. In terms of its research enterprise, the UO is positioned within the top few percent of more than 4,000 universities and colleges nationally.
Richard Linton
Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, University of Oregon