|
REPORT
RESEARCH FUTURES TASK
FORCE
PHYSICAL and BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES and ENGINEERING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to provide a framework to ensure that Cornell,
in an era of eroding financial resources for research, retains its position
as a world-class research university. The Research Futures Task Force was charged
by President Rawlings to outline research goals for Cornell, set forth research
priorities, make recommendations and suggest a strategy for allocating limited
resources within the physical and biological sciences and engineering.
Methodology: The Task Force members, half of whom were selected
by the Faculty Senate and the other half by the co-chairs, met at least every
other week over the summer, under the co-chairmanship of Norm Scott and
John Hopcroft. The Task Force also used as input the responses from over 70
Cornell researchers identified as principal investigators of sponsored research
projects during the past two years.
Research Goals for Cornell: Cornell
is a research-intensive educational institution with goals shaped by intellectual
diversity as the product of Ezra Cornell's original vision. Our research goal
is to establish Cornell as the preeminent institution in research and education
in those areas which emerge from a diversity of intellectual disciplines while
maintaining our acknowledged strength in core disciplines.
Research Priorities: The Task Force
developed a conceptual topography or taxonomy for use in mapping research efforts
and designating priorities. We reiterate Cornell's strong commitment to basic
research in all sciences and express the importance of interdisciplinary (cross-disciplinary)
research.
We focus much of the report on areas which are characterized by a breadth of
impact in basic and applied research throughout the sciences, the social sciences
and the humanities, with an importance over decades. To this end the Task Force
suggests that the following broad research themes are likely to strongly influence
future scientific research: (1) genomics and integrative molecular biology,
(2) information sciences, and (3) advanced materials. Cornell currently has
enormous faculty resources in or directly related to these three strategic enabling
areas. These resources are dispersed across many of the departments and all
of the colleges of the University. Within this broad, loosely connected community
of researchers, we need to develop a strategy for enhancing the effectiveness
of resource commitments.
We provide examples of exciting research possibilities that capitalize on Cornell's
existing strengths that could provide a focus for efforts in these areas. The
faculty will determine actual implementation and directions within these areas.
Strategies: The University's task in marshaling the resources
supporting scientific research is to focus the efforts in each of the strategic
enabling areas to ensure a high level of excellence for the long term.
Given the enormous faculty investments already made it is appropriate for the
University to commit substantial resources to foster this effort.
Resource reallocations are proposed to come primarily from within the areas
of the physical and biological sciences and engineering through a joint process
of administrative and faculty interaction. To retain our leadership position
we must make strategic investments through a collaborative process. We suggest
there be a call for initiatives in the three strategic areas. A detailed organizational
structure is provided in the Task Force Report for evaluation of initiatives
and for subsequent re-evaluation of the entire process after its first three
years.
Recommendations: The Task Force recommends:
* Increasing emphasis on the recruitment and
retention of the very best
faculty.
* Enhancing our competitiveness to attract the
best graduate students.
* Maintaining a commitment to the basic research
in the sciences.
* Developing a process to focus research efforts
in the key strategic enabling areas of biology, information sciences, and
advanced materials.
* Improving Cornell's research infrastructure.
* Encouraging increased cross-disciplinary research.
I. INTRODUCTION
President Rawlings and Provost Randel asked Dean of Engineering John Hopcroft
and VP for Research and Advanced Studies Norman Scott to convene a small group
of faculty members to articulate a position about the future of research at
Cornell. The administration's assumption is that Cornell must have a more focused
strategy for investments in research in order to retain its position as a world
class research University. The charge of the group,the Research Futures Task
Force, whose membership is listed in Appendix A,was to:
* Outline research goals for Cornell,
* Suggest research priorities,
* Suggest a research strategy with models for
allocating limited
Cornell resources.
The report was to deal only with the physical and biological sciences and engineering,
and it was to be completed at the beginning of the fall semester so that it
could be discussed by the faculty during the fall semester.
I.1 BACKGROUND
From the end of the Second World War until very recently, the scientific and
engineering research enterprise of American universities grew tremendously.
Periods of slow growth or recession were soon overtaken by the exponential rise
in research funding. All highly rated research intensive universities began
expanding their research enterprises at the earliest possible opportunity, and
those that started later have, by and large, not made it into the first tier.
In the last few years budgetary constraints, popular disenchantment with universities,
and the disappearance of visible foreign enemies have begun to erode the financial
resources available to support university research. Cornell's research environment
reflects these national trends, and an analysis of Cornell's research performance-as
measured for example by research expenditures-shows that Cornell has reached
a plateau.
In addition to these changes in resources, other changes are taking place. Breakthroughs in technology and profound new
insights have led to significant advances in some areas, redefining the relative
importance of fields and opening new areas for study. As an example, during
the past century, physics has played a prominent role as we learned about the
nature of matter and time and about the creation of the universe. Biological
sciences are likely to play a similar role in the next 50 years owing to the
tremendous increase in our ability to understand and control biological phenomena.
These changes in available resources and intellectual structure pose challenges
to Cornell's research future. The University must develop a strategy that is
flexible and insightful enough to allow its research enterprise to prosper under
shifting conditions, and aggressive enough to recognize opportunities for making
a major impact and take advantage of them.
This report, which is designed to stimulate a discussion,
* attempts to articulate a research vision and
goals for Cornell
* describes a strategy for setting research priorities
with the goal of reaching acknowledged research leadership and quality.
* outlines three broad areas in which resources
should be better
focused to take advantage of Cornell's uniqueness, build
on its strengths, and influence scientific, technological and societal changes,
and
* suggests strategies by which the administration
can facilitatereaching
these goals.
II. CORNELL'S RESEARCH GOALS
* We embrace Cornell's intellectual diversity
as the product of Ezra Cornell's original vision.
* We reaffirm a vision of an institution that
supports both the pursuit of fundamental knowledge and its application for
the betterment of humankind. In this vision we recognize that these activities
are mutually reinforcing and are conducted
in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
* Our research goal is to establish Cornell
as the preeminent institution in research and education in those areas which
emerge from a diversity of intellectual disciplines while maintaining our acknowledged
strength in core disciplines.
III. RESEARCH PRIORITIES
III.1 WHY DEVELOP RESEARCH PRIORITIES NOW?
The dwindling federal resources available for research have put increasing pressures
on Cornell's resources. For example, expectations of matching funds by federal
agencies, increasing levels of start-up funding for new tenure track and senior
faculty appointments, the significant increase in graduate fellowship support
by our competitor institutions, support of the research infrastructure such
as libraries, expensive shared equipment, and information services and reduced
indirect cost recovery force us to make critical judgments on where to place
our limited resources. The harsh reality is that we cannot fund every worthy
claimant. With these realities in mind, we face a research environment where
greater collaboration is necessary between researchers and the administration.
A joint process, not heavy handed or bureaucratic, but one which acknowledges
the need for collaboration among the parties is needed. Circumstances require
that resource reallocation must be considered within physical and biologicalsciences
and engineering.
The Task Force sent an electronic message to over 500 researchers, identified
as principal investigators of sponsored research projects during the past two
years. The e-mail message informed the recipient of the existence of the Task
Force and asked for input as the Task Force addressed issues of defining Cornell's
research future and strategic research choices. Specifically we also asked,
"What areas do you perceive will be of research importance over the next
ten years and why?"
We
received over 70 responses. The replies are summarized in Appendix B. Two overwhelming
responses were: (1) that the most important investment Cornell could make in
research consists in appointing and retaining faculty of the highest quality
and (2) that in proposing research priorities for the University at large the
Task Force seemed to be engaged in a very dangerous exercise of university-wide
selection of important research areas and centralized planning. Quoting from
one colleague--"To the extent that we have not always been as successful
as we could have been, it is due to our not insisting that all our appointments
be of the highest quality, to academic units being too narrow and inward-looking
in their perspectives, and to the central administration not making critical,
leveraged investments in research support when required."
The Task Force subscribes wholeheartedly to the primacy of faculty quality and
shares the faculty's concern about "top-down" or centralized management
of research priorities. However, the majority of its members recognize that
Cornell can not do everything, and that we must have a strategy ensuring well
informed and wise resource commitments. Numerous faculty members have expressed
the opinion we must step up to the changing research environmentor
lose our leadership position.
III.2 CORNELL'S STRENGTHS
Because we cannot do everything, the research community needs to decide what
we will and will not do on the basis of a broadly-based set of research priorities.
In order to succeed in a highly competitive arena, any strategy for setting
research priorities must build from the current strengths of the institution.
The
Task Force has identified several major strengths that can anchor a base of
excellence for productive and high-quality research programs.
* The most important element of the research
program is that Cornell has broad strength
in the basic sciences at the departmental level, extending throughout all colleges
of the University. A measure of the quality of Cornell's graduate programs is
the number of fields that are listed in the top 10 of the most recent NRC 1995
survey (see Appendix C ). In addition
Cornell is consistently ranked as one of the top ten universities in the world.
* Another major strength of the Cornell research
program is that barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration are low. Collaboration
is facilitated by Cornell's graduate fields which in some cases createextended
departments and in other cases exist independently of departments.
As the intellectual structure of many disciplines evolves, suchinterdisciplinary
collaborations will be essential if we are to stay at the forefront. Cornell
has successfully organized a variety of interdisciplinary areas into centers such as the Material Sciences
Center, Biotechnology Center for Advanced Technology, Center for the Environment,
etc.
* Cornell is home to two national research facilities:
the NS/CHESS/MacCHESS facilities at Wilson Laboratory, and the Cornell Nanofabrication
Facility. These facilities provide resources to researchers across the United
States, as well as providing a focus for much research done on campus. In addition,
Cornell manages the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center --Arecibo Observatory--in
Puerto Rico which attracts researchers from Cornell and around the world.
III.3 DEVELOPING RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND RESOURCE
ALLOCATION STRATEGIES
In thinking about research priorities at Cornell, it is useful to discuss the
different basic classes of research, and then develop an investment strategy
appropriate for each class. The investment strategies of the University must
be based on the recognition that the University
will not grow in the coming years. The size of its faculty will be the
same or smaller, and hence, any faculty investment in new areas must come by
reassignment, not addition of faculty lines. An enlightened management of faculty
retirements is an opportunity to alter the research landscape.
(1) As is befitting to a great University, Cornell
has a strong commitment to basic research in all the sciences. From the University's
inception, Cornell faculty have sought to understand nature and the human condition.
Cornell investigators have advanced this understanding through creative and
rigorous fundamental research, which has produced new knowledge and opened additional
doors for exploration and discovery. Cornell's achievements in fundamental research
in many fields of science have earned world-wide recognition. In areas that
capture the public's imagination such as cosmology or high-energy physics, the
breakthroughs and their importance are easily and vividly grasped by the general
population. Furthermore, the achievements in basic research underlie progress
in all areas of science.
Efforts
in basic research may span departments and the ultimate importance or time scale
may not be clear. However, it is essential to create an environment supportive
of excellent work, which will enable us to develop a number of opportunities
commensurate with an institution of Cornell's stature.
Cornell's strategy has been to hire and support superb faculty and let them
make the strategic choices on what intellectual problems to pursue. Our day-to-day
operations need to be structured so that researchers make bets and move into
new areas by its ordinary processes. While it is important that Cornell be world
class in some areas of basic research, it need not be world class in all areas.
(2) Every century is marked by a handful of what we shall call strategic enabling
research areas. A University must sponsor world class research in these areas
in order to remain top ranked. Strategic enabling areas are characterized by
the breadth of their impact in basic and applied research throughout the sciences,
the social sciences and the humanities, and a sense of their importance over
the next thirty to forty years. A University needs to be world class in these
areas because the science developed in these areas supports so many other disciplines
across the entire University. Biology is joined by information sciences and
materials sciences as the three strategic enabling areas of the next decades.
The large investment of resources necessary for achieving and maintaining world
class excellence in these broad areas require a high level of institutional
commitment. Although it is faculty leadership that must drive the research directions
within the strategic themes, only the senior administration and the trustees
can make such commitments. It is moreover the ability and willingness to make
such commitments that define a pre-eminent research university.
The research activity of more than half of the science faculty at Cornell can
be associated with the three strategically enabling areas we have listed. The
enormous base of resources is spread across many of the departments and all
of the colleges in the University. It is in these strategically enabling areas
that Cornell needs a new strategy to enhance the effectiveness of its resource
commitments. The administration needs to work with the faculty to focus priorities
into well defined clusters of effort and find ways that Cornell can be uniquely
strong in areas where every major research University is going to be investing
for its future.
(3) There are other broad interdisciplinary areas that are also characterized
by a breadth of impact but which we do not classify as strategic enabling. The
impact in these other interdisciplinary areas does not come from fundamental
scientific breakthroughs in a discipline but rather from the importance of the
area to national concerns or fromscientific
synthesis achieved by inter-comparisons. These interdisciplinary areas rely
on a broad range of sciences and technologies and thus are important to researchers
in many different disciplines. Examples of important interdisciplinary areas
are environment, energy, health, earth systems science, etc.
The University can be catalytic in encouraging faculty leadership in important
interdisciplinary areas and by disseminating information which supports those
areas. However, leadership in the interdisciplinary area must emerge, from the
scientific work of the faculty; the administration's responsibility is to support,
not trying to create it. The administration should encourage each interdisciplinary
area to elaborate a vision and identify gaps in the disciplines supporting it;
administrative leadership can help departments and faculty overcome procedural
and territorialboundaries
that inhibit collaborative research and teaching efforts.
Across all disciplines we need to make sure that the existing resources are
wisely invested. This consideration applies especially to faculty recruitment.
The overall quality of the faculty (and hence of the university ) can improve
only if the new people we hire are better than we are. The governing assumption
should be that it often takes several years to find such candidates. Hiring
committees, departments, department chairs, and deans will all have to make the tough call of rejecting
good candidates in the belief that outstanding ones will emerge in subsequent
hiring cycles. Accordingly, each college dean must guarantee that once a department
is authorized to search for a position, the line will remain available to that
department until it is filled.
Our chances of attracting excellent applicants will also increase if each search
is broadly defined. In a period when the current size of the faculty is likely
to be reduced, at least in some areas, the rationale for niche appointments
is weaker than ever. Similarly, all faculty search committees should include
wide representation from thediscipline,
including members from outside the academic unit. A department should systematically
mentor each junior hire and, well before the tenure review, should be required
to report to the larger disciplinary grouping on the new faculty member's progress
and how well that individual has fulfilled the programmatic expectations of
the search. Finally, by improving the faculty through these mechanisms, the
university would gain instructional flexibility: teaching could often be carried
out in a discipline by a broader set of faculty than those in the corresponding
academic department.
Cornell must attract the best graduate students. The gap between our support
packages for graduate students and those of our peers has become a problem that
demands urgent attention. We need fellowships that will enable our graduate
fields to be competitive with other institutions, and we need incentives that
will entice students and faculty to compete for external training resources.
Faculty should be assisted in advertising the intellectual breadth that Cornell
offers its students.
Pressures
from the increasing cost of new faculty startup funds, rising costs of state-of-the-art
instrumentation, increased demands for matching funds on equipment grants, increased
time spent on writing proposals (in the very competitive funding environment),
and time spent building relationships with corporations to fund laboratories
and research, suggest a need for a more comprehensive and unified approach.
IV. STRATEGIC ENABLING AREAS: CORNELL'S FOCUS
We have identified three broad areas that will impact research in many areas of science, the humanities
and social sciences in the next decades. Cornell has tremendous resources
invested in these areas and needs to focusits efforts within them by
building on current strengths. In addition very important synergies exist
between these areas.
The Task Force recognizes that in identifying strategic enabling areas we may be accused of trying to
pick winners and losers. The track record onpredictions is not particularly
impressive. However, we believe acampus-wide discussion of strategic
enabling areas as they impact the long term strengths of Cornell's
research leadership will be both a stimulus to suggest alternative options
and to better understand the major strengthswhich exist both within and
between these strategic enabling areas. An agreement on strategic areas
on-campus can provide Cornell with the focus necessary to enhance its position
with our competition through increased funding from our many sources
of support.
It is anticipated that the faculty will determine actual implementation and directions within these areas.
The role of the administration is to provide mechanisms to foster faculty
collaborations. Faculty must provide leadership, and as leadership
develops, the colleges should support it,particularly in hiring decisions
which will support the strategic enabling area.
IV.1 GENOMICS AND INTEGRATIVE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY:
The increasingly sophisticated tools of molecular
biology have taken us to the threshold
ofa new era in biology. For many
years the ability to accumulate data wasrate limiting for biologists.
Now large scale DNA sequencing will soonreveal all the genes required
to encode most major life forms, including humans, microbes, plants and
animals, leading us into an unprecedented era of discovery.
Underlying the birth of this
"new biology" will be a major shift in theparadigm of biological research
from a reductionist approach, which focuses on individual phenomena, to
a high level approach that integrates themolecular information for whole
organisms, physiological systems, andbehavior. The major tasks for
the "new biology" over the next 30-100 yearswill be: 1) to associate DNA sequence data with biological
function and todetermine how sequences have
changed through evolutionary time to create the diversity of life forms
that now inhabit this planet, and 2) to understand the flow and control
of information from the genome and theinteraction of that information
with information from the environment. The ensuing discoveries will revolutionize our understandings
of the originsof life and the molecular processes
that underlie life. They will also leadto many revolutionary discoveries
in engineering, medicine, the environment and agriculture.
Cornell is in a unique position to assume world-wide leadership in this "new biology." Unlike
many of its peer institutions, Cornell has a broad range of life sciences. It
is renowned for its studies in molecular and evolutionary biology across
a wide range of organisms; it is an
international center for
agricultural research (both plant and animal)and has top-rated engineering
programs. It is also the birthplace for much of the research now being conducted
on crop plant genomes. These factors
when marshaled collectively
make this area at Cornell much more than the sum of its individual parts.
It transcends rankings of our separate programs and builds a major
integrated area of phenomenal strength.
Cornell can combine its expertise in plant, animal, microbial, and human biology/genetics (at CUMC)
to address issues that could not be approached by studying a single organism.
For example, unlike human systems, plant and animals have been bred for
specific multigene traits, and this process iswell-documented -- especially
in Cornell's agricultural disciplines. These systems provide an exceptional
resource from which to discover underlying principles that govern complex
genetic systems. Further, researchers studying these systems should
join forces with engineers, computer scientists and researchers
skilled in systems integration and systems dynamics. Work pursued on this
horizon in Ithaca should, moreover,complement work in the strategic
areas (Genetics and Genetic Medicine,Structural Biology and Neurobiology)
identified by Cornell University Medical College. The impact
of the research of each campus would be enhanced through research exchanges.
This approach would integrate knowledge (and therefore discovery)
horizontally across species by using a functional perspective as
a common unifying theme.
This integrative approach to biology could be initiated in several different content areas, such
as: a comparative genome project (comparing genomic information across
species) that would put the results of the human genome project in a much broader
and more interpretable evolutionary context; an integrative neuroscience
project that would consider cognition,perception and action across
all species and at multiple levels ofanalyses; and a developmental
biology project employing a comparative perspective that considers
common problems of development and how they are solved in convergent ways across
different evolutionary taxa.
Another exciting aspect of integrative biology is the possibility of chemical prospecting--research
that integrates chemical ecology with molecular biology and chemistry
to discover potential pharmaceutical or agrochemical agents in natural
occurring compounds.
Biological data are accumulating at a rate that exceeds the ability of biologists to digest it. Bioinformatics,
"data base mining" and computational biology will
be critical in the "new biology". It is likely that new and very fast algorithms
will be required for comparing and culling interpretations from
vast amounts of data. Cornell, with its top rated Computer Science Department,
Theory Center, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Center, is ideally
positioned to lead the field of computational biology and bioinformatics.
Perhaps less obvious, but no less important, is the human impact that will result from a better understanding
of genomics. Ethical and legal issues are apparent. A more fundamental
understanding of genomics and what it means for both the origin and
nature of humankind will have repercussions throughout the humanities and
social sciences. We will ultimately perceive ourselves differently because
of this biological revolution. We need to beprepared to deal with the consequence
of our increased understanding of the mechanics of life.
Initiatives such as those outlined here require significant intellectual flexibility on the part of
the participating faculty as many biologists adjust to a systems approach
and as non-biological scientists and engineers learn both biological concepts
and vocabulary. If Cornell students are to be leaders in the upcoming
biological revolution, they must have an opportunity to learn in this
integrative mode of thought.
IV.2 INFORMATION SCIENCES: The onset
of the "Information Age" is transforming academic disciplines.
The trend is apparent in the foregoing discussion of Genomics and
Integrative Molecular Biology, and which will also be apparent in the section
on Advanced Materials. The Information Age is transforming the methods
of research and the process of education by creating new information resources
and providing collaboration unconstrained by physical location.
The impact on the core function of universities will be so pervasive
that any leading institution must be engaged in the field. Cornell
created one of the first (and best) Computer Science Departments in the
United States, and that early lead has helped the University build exceptional
strength in the Information Sciences across several departments.
This strength will enable Cornell to provide the education and research
partnering necessary in the next few decades across virtually every academic
discipline.
The Information Sciences are concerned with the recognition of relationships, the imposition
of structure on information, and the development of new thought
paradigms and theories that can be validated by experiments upon information
archives and on information systems.Relationships between information
and explanations of information are emerging as the intellectual
currency of this new era.
A salient feature of the "Information Age" is the rapid growth of information repositories.
Questions arising from them illustrate the scope and role of the Information
Sciences. For example, as described earlier,biological research on the
human genome is creating massive gene sequencing databases that are shared by
thousands of researchers worldwide. These databases are today enormous,
largely unstructured, collections of "raw" information. To impose meaning
upon them, and to relate genes to proteins and proteins to function, and
then to identify relationships that span species, will require a massive
investment not just in a pure intellectual sense, but also in a practical
sense, through the construction of new devices for accessing and
manipulating genetic data. These resources must be easily accessible and network
capacity must be adequate to support necessary applications, such
as three-dimensional visualization. We will need radically improved methods
to represent relationships among andbetween data items, to structure
the data, and to query within these large databases. Progress in computational
biology will thus be limited by, or fueled by, basic advances in
the subject of information retrieval (IR). Fortunately, Cornell was an
early leader in IR and today is a major player in related areas such as multimedia
databases, natural language processing and the cognitive aspects
of user interfaces to information. Few universities are better positioned
to exploit this opportunity.
More broadly, fundamental research aimed at improving the Internet is recognized as a national priority.
The current Internet will need significant extensions to succeed
in the real-world settings where the new technologies are likely to
have their most significant socio-economic impact. For example, medical
information networks and remote monitoring of patients could reduce costs,
improve medical care, and permit people with chronic medical problems to
live at home rather than in nursing homes. However, such uses of the
Internet demand a much higher standard for security, privacy and availability
than is required for commercial transactions. This also applies
to other emerging networked applications,such as air traffic control
systems, software to manage the national electric power grid, and so
forth.
Cornell is a major center for research on reliable network communications.We have strength in both theory
and practice, and we are leaders in setting the research agenda in the
area. This expertise will make it possible for Cornell to exploit the information
technologies at the cutting edge. For example, although the US air
traffic control project faltered and became a visible fiasco, Cornell technology
now underlies an apparently successful project of a similar nature
in France. If this project advances as expected, it will be the world's
first demonstration of a next-generation air-traffic control computing
and communication system, and Cornell research on reliable, secure
networks will have made it possible. Cornell software plays a key role in
the new Swiss Electronic Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange
trading software, both considered leading-edge efforts that are breaking new
ground in stock market functionality. Few, if any, academic programs have
had comparable impact on these kinds of emerging critical uses of network
communications.
Plans to increase quality of service and provide more capacity are part of the Next Generation Internet
(NGI) initiative being shaped at the presidential level. Here,
Cornell has positioned itself to be a major player through strategic hiring
in the Engineering College and by the installation, maintenance
and continual upgrading of state-of-the-art network services in the University's
communications infrastructure.Investment in information technologies,
throughout Cornell, will enable diverse researchers to exploit
these tools in teaching, collaboration and research. Indeed, this is already
happening through projects like the Nilesystem, a computational engine
for the CLEO particle physics group, and the seismic events database being
developed by the Geology Department.
Finally it should be noted that the Internet has changed basic notions of how we compute, stressing the
importance of mobile agents and giving rise to languages such as Java.
New computing paradigms will affect all of the computationally intensive
areas of science from "bio-informatics" to the computational physics and
chemistry that underlie materials science. Just as computers themselves have
had pervasive impact, new computational paradigms may trigger a further
revolution in the types of research we can undertake. As the Cornell research
community learns these new paradigms, we will see a wave of applications
that, if managed carefully, will translate to visibility and impact on
a national scale.
Connections To Computational Science. The field of computational science is
in a tight symbiotic relationship
with computer science and the information sciences, much like the relationship
between mathematics and physics in the nineteenth century. Increased
computing power has made it possible to simulate certain physical events
with enough precision to reveal new understanding of the details
of interactions at the molecular level. This has already led to new industrial
practice in drug design and materialsdesign. One major part of computational
science is seen in discretesimulations of continuous phenomena,
as in protein folding. Underlying this kind of scientific computing
is a combination of numerical analysis and general algorithmic and data
structure analysis --- an area in whichC ornell is exceptionally strong.
Large scale optimization when thousands of variables are involved can
require a clever data structure to represent sparse interconnections and/or
a graceful interface with a complicated database. Through such optimization
schemes, the Information Sciences can greatly widen the class of
solvable numerical problems in science and engineering.
In the field of material sciences, discussed in the section that follows,computational models of materials
and simulations are used hand-in-hand with experimental studies of
real materials. Computational science is today inextricable from progress
in other sciences, and this is true throughout Cornell. Since progress in
computational science will enable advances in many disciplines, by investing
in computational science, the University will both strengthen a major
field of scientific inquiry and provide infrastructural support that
will serve many areas of research.
Another major role of Information Sciences in the traditional sciences is seen in the study of complex
systems. In this role, information systems are seen as generalizations of
"living systems". Indeed, the study of finite automata (a fundamental notion
in computer science) arose out of study of the brain as a complex computing
system. One can indeed see information science as the study of "information
processing systems" in all their variety, from computers to
organisms. Fifty years ago, before the discovery of the molecular structure
of DNA, few would have suspected that the storage, transmission, and
duplication of information lay at the heart of all biological processes.
One of the major achievements of our age is the realization that the nature
of the living world is determined in large part by the information content
of the underlying DNA. Thus the purview of information science, which
deals with abstracted information, extends beyond the not only design
and use of computational machines, to the very processes of life itself.
IV.3 ADVANCED MATERIALS: Cornell is famous for its
research on equilibrium phase transitions in matter.
The subject has been a major research theme here for at least 60 years.
Our scientists defined the important concepts, produced the central theories,
and performed the seminal experiments. The work has been widely recognized
with major international prizes including two Nobel Prizes. Ken Wilson's
renormalization group theory was the rosetta stone for predicting
everything about phase transitions. Today, the materials research field faces
an equally exciting challenge - the Cornell understanding of non-equilibrium
states of matter. The topic is ripe for rapid development. New theoretical
and experimental tools can be used to develop a similarly complete
understanding of some of nature's most important materials.
Almost all of the objects around us were formed while out of equilibrium. They did not pass through
a phase transition in a controlled manner to end up in a nearly perfect state.
Nearly perfect crystals are very rare in nature. Instead, most of the
matter around us has been trapped in a non-equilibrium condition -
sometimes through rapid quenching to the final state and other times through
natural (and even biological) growth processes. The equations describing
such growth are usually nonlinear and the final state depends upon
the particular path taken through environmental conditions of
temperature, pressure, and chemical composition. Many of the materials important for their strength,lightness, flexibility, or
electronic properties burst into existence in a chaotic condition. The recipes
for their fabrication have come through empirical accident.
The important general concepts for materials research have probably not even been discovered. Even
as we grope for the general theory we can make rapid progress through a partnership
of theorists armed with powerful computer simulation techniques
and experimentalists equipped with the remarkable modern analytical
tools. Accurate simulations of very complex processes can be computed countless
thousands of times to focus on the important initial conditions
and rates of environment change. On the experimental side we can use
modern analytical equipment to study structure and composition of newly invented
matter on every useful size scale - even to the final arrangement of
each atom!
Advances in materials are responsible for the rapid progress in micro- and nano-devices in electronics,
for enormous improvements in data storage capacity and for self-eroding
polymers for drug delivery. Other institutions and nations are
placing increased emphasis on materials research, which is now widely
recognized as a strategic discipline.
Cornell has an extremely strong foundation on which to foster excellence in
research in materials. This
base includes the Materials Science Center(MSC), highly rated departments
and many world class research facilities. Among the unique capabilities
at Cornell are the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility which enables processing
on the nanometer level, MSC Facilities and the Cornell High Energy
Synchrotron Source (CHESS) which permit detailed studies at the molecular
level. Biomaterials research is carriedout through the Biotechnology
Center and elsewhere at Cornell.
Modern materials research spans
a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from the manipulation of individual
atoms in computer chips to the creation of large scale systems such as
bridges and buildings, from the physics and chemistry of complex fluids
to the synthesis and study of biological materials and from nanoscale
technologies for microelectronics and sensors to new alloys and ceramics
for extreme conditions. Macromolecules are ubiquitous; they comprise the bumpers of cars, liquid crystal
displays of lap-top computers, hip implants
and even stabilizers in food.
One of the most exciting areas of materials science and another in which Cornell is the leader is nanotechnology.
As microelectronic devices move to smaller and smaller dimensions,
bulk properties vanish and unusual properties are obtained. Nanodevices,
sometimes only tens or hundreds of atoms in size, move toward
the realm of one-dimensional properties, exhibiting unusual electronic,
magnetic and quantum phonon effects. Advances in nanotechnology have
been aided by our ability to manipulate and probe materials, one atom
at a time. By combining the excellent selectivity of biological
systems it may be possible to produce self-organizing nanodevices
as well as ultra sensitive biosensors. Recent Cornell contributions include
pioneering work in microelectromechanical systems using Cornell capabilities
not available even 10 years ago. From this work, small scale devices
ranging from automotive air bag sensors to scanning tunneling microscopes
to artificial ears, all smaller than the head of a pin, are being developed.
In other realms of materials research, biomaterials and polymers are becoming increasingly important
in many technologies. The sophisticated use of self-organizing macromolecules
which include liquid crystals, block copolymers, hydrogen- and
¼-bonded complexes and many natural polymers mayhold the key to developing
new structures and devices in many advanced technology industries. Combinations
of both complementary and antagonistic molecular interactions in macromolecular
systems can create order in materials over many length
scales. This ability to tailor function may lead to ready processing of polymers
into light emitting structures, extreme performance non-wetting coatings,
organic transistors or new display materials, for example. Even
though we are just now beginning to be able to predict complex and non-equilibrium
materials properties, further progress will require enhanced computational
approaches, including both hardware and algorithm development.
Today materials research is
rapidly evolving and increasingly interdisciplinary, where progress
is dependent on overlap between biology, chemistry, physics and engineering.
This interdisciplinary aspect of materials research is a hallmark
of the Cornell research environment and has enabled Cornell to thrive
as one of the earliest and most productive centers of materials excellence
in the country. New abilities to predict,create and synthesize "designer
materials" are being developed. The changing nature of materials
research is involving researchers and research until recently not considered
part of materials science.
V. STRATEGIES FOR STRATEGIC ENABLING AREAS:
Within the three broad strategically enabling areas of genomics and integrated molecular biology,
information sciences and materials science, Cornell has the opportunity
to achieve distinction in a wide variety of basic and applied research
areas. There are many possible strategies forusing University resources
to focus efforts and foster growth: hiring a few senior faculty "superstars",
building up a large core of younger faculty, building a critical common
facility that will provide unique support for researchers, enhancing graduate
support, among others.
We do not believe that a single standard mix of these strategies will work best for all areas. Each case
calls for strategic analysis by the facility already in place. At the University
level, initiatives that focus on interrelations between the
three areas and take advantage of the breadth of Cornell's faculty and resources
will presumably have priority. Given the enormous faculty investments
already made in the three strategic enabling areas we have emphasized,
we feel it is appropriate for the University to commit substantial internal
resources to foster this effort. We are cognizant, however, of strong
sentiments against increasing square footage of the current physical plant
as opposed to renovations and reallocations of existing space.
Specific content areas and strategies should therefore be considered as coherent packages on a case
by case basis. Such packages should emerge in the form of research initiatives
proposed by groups of faculty that cut across several departments.
We suggest that there be a call for initiatives in each of the three strategic
domains that this report recommends for development. These initiatives
should present a plan for developing a broad area of research and should
not only argue its scientific merit and significance but also explain
how Cornell can become pre-eminent in that area and how this will be accomplished
by capitalizing and leveraging on existing strengths. Initiatives
should also consider relevant curriculum development at both undergraduate
and graduate level, as such a component is likely to greatly enhance
the long term viability of any initiative. Links to off campus facilities,
such as the Medical College, should also be considered as additional Cornell
resources that might be used to justify an initiative.
The Task Force faced a significant
challenge in suggesting a plan of implementation. Departments
have been and are key, but we also need to engage a broader set of individuals
and groups, without increasing bureaucracy, to contribute
to decision making. We suggest an organizational structure for evaluating the
process and initiatives within the strategic enabling areas in Appendix D. The only reasonable way for
Cornell to foster research growth in
these general domains is to provide a way of supporting the passion and
excitement that is present in interdisciplinary clusters of faculty already
at Cornell. No amount of funds distributed in atop down manner from the administration
can substitute for a program that taps into the creativity, collegiality,
and enthusiasm that exist among our faculty.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Cornell as a research-intensive educational institution is at an important time in its history. Cornell's
research performance, whether measured by research expenditures, faculty
quality or faculty morale has reached a plateau. The Task Force believes
that it is appropriate for Cornell to articulate a broadly based
set of research priorities, and through empowering the faculty to exert
research leadership, we will advance Cornell as a leading institution
into the next century.
We recommend that Cornell:
… Increase emphasis on the recruitment and retention of the very
best faculty. All faculty searches
should include broad representation from the discipline, including members
from outside the academic unit.
… Enhance our competitiveness to attract the best graduate students. There is an urgent need to
address this lack of competitiveness immediately. We recommend
the appointment of a Task Force to develop actions to restore our strong
graduate student environment.
… Maintain a commitment to basic research in the sciences and continue the current investment
strategy of hiring superb faculty and letting them make the strategic
choices of what research directions to pursue.
… Develop a process to focus research efforts in the key strategic
enabling areas of biology,
information sciences, and advanced materials, in order to take advantage of
Cornell's unique strengths. We have proposed an organizational mechanism to
foster this process. The faculty will
determine the actual implementation
of the process and the particular foci that will orient research initiatives.
* Improve Cornell's research infrastructure. Increasing expense of
new faculty start-ups and senior
faculty appointments, rising costs of state-of-the-art instrumentation,
and increased demands for matching funds for research equipment proposals
require a more comprehensive and unified approach.
… Encourage interdisciplinary research. Barriers to interdisciplinary
collaboration at Cornell are
minimal. Cornell has a strategic advantage of strength in broad areas, but
we need to develop new approaches in order to enhance and improve the process
to capitalize on Cornell's inheren tadvantage in interdisciplinary
research in comparison to other institutions.
APPENDIX A
Research Futures Task Force Members
John Abowd, Professor or Industrial and Labor Relations, 259 Ives Hall
Neil Ashcroft, Professor of
Physics, LASSP, 529-A Clark Hall
Jon Clardy, Professor of Chemistry, 560 S T Olin Lab
Walter Cohen, Dean, Graduate School, 384 Caldwell Hall
Robert Constable, Chair, Computer Science, 4130a Upson Hall
Persis Drell, Associate Professor of Physics, LNS, 118 Newman Lab
Peter Gierasch, Associate Chair, Astronomy, Director, CRSR, 318 Space Sciences
John Hopcroft, Dean, College of Engineering, 242 Carpenter Hall
Peter Hurst, Planning Research Associate, Institutional Planning
Research, 440 Day Hall
Lynn Jelinski, Director, Center for Advanced Technology, 130b Biotech
Frank Keil, Professor of Psychology, 228 Uris Hall
Douglas McGregor, Associate Dean of Research, Veterinary Administration, S3 016 Schurman Hall
Christopher Ober, Associate Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, 327 Bard Hall
Robert Richardson, Professor of Physics, LASSP, 607 Clark Hall
Norman Scott, Vice President for Research & Advanced Studies,
314 Day Hall
Michael Shuler, Professor of Chemical Engineering, 340 Olin Hall
Steve Tanksley, Professor of Plant Breeding Biometry, 248 Emerson Hall
APPENDIX B
Faculty Response to Research Futures Survey
On July 21, Vice President Norm Scott, on behalf of the Research Task Force, sent an electronic
message to more than 500 faculty members announcing the task force charge
and a request for input. All faculty who had received $100,000 or more
in research grants over the prior two years were selected from the Sponsored Programs database to participate.
The question that was put to them
was, "What areas do you perceive will be of research importance over the
next TEN years and why?" Seventy-two individuals responded, approximately
15%, an excellent response rate for a "dear colleague"
letter in the middle of the summer.
While most of the respondents addressed the above question directly, many of them made additional comments
about the |