The State of Research Funding and Support University of Minnesota

The State of Research
Funding and Support
at the
University of Minnesota

ABOUT OUR
ORGANIZATION
MN Academics United is an affiliate of SEIU Local 284. Faculty at the
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities campus are coming together to
form a union for a stronger voice in shaping our University’s direction
and priorities, our working conditions, and the future of higher
education in Minnesota. A faculty union will give us the means to
democratize our university through true shared governance with a
legally binding contract, including the opportunity to halt the erosion of
research funding and support.
For more information, contact us at:
450 Southview Blvd.
South Saint Paul, MN 55075
651-256-9100
info@MNacademics.org
www.MNacademics.org
www.Facebook.com/MNacademics
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................. 3
METHODOLOGY............................................................................. 4
FINDING 1.......................................................................................... 5
FINDING 2......................................................................................... 6
FINDING 3......................................................................................... 7
FINDING 4......................................................................................... 8
FINDING 5......................................................................................... 9
THE PATH FORWARD.................................................................... 10
END NOTES...................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS.......................................... 13
FIGURE 1: CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME DEDICATED
TO SECURING RESEARCH FUNDING ...................................... 5
FIGURE 2: IMPACTS OF INSECURE RESEARCH FUNDING.6
FIGURE 3: TRANSPARENCY IN USE OF FACILITIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES ...................................................... 9
2

University of Minnesota faculty and other academic researchers
report that research suffers from federal funding challenges and
unsupportive University policies.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A recent survey completed by hundreds of academic researchers at
the University of Minnesota revealed that the amount of time they
spend applying for federal grants has increased, often compromising
their research, and that many of them do not feel they receive adequate
support from the University for their research.
University of Minnesota researchers rely heavily on federal funding,
and their experience reflects the uncertainty and strain associated with
applying for and securing federal grants. With increased competition for
a dwindling pot of available federal grant money and inadequate support
from the University for many academic researchers, these scientists,
mathematicians and other researchers report spending more time on
applying for grants and completing grant-required paperwork, and less
time on the vital research to which they are dedicated. More researchers
are chasing fewer grants, and the predictable result has been more time
wasted on increasingly unsuccessful grant applications and greater
insecurity about funding. Compounding this challenge is the fact that
academic researchers do not believe they have the adequate support and
transparency one would expect from the University to effectively fulfill
their research mission.
The funding insecurity and increased pressure felt by faculty and
researchers has often limited the potential value of their research and
driven some to leave the field altogether. Researchers at the University of
Minnesota report that they are often forced to change or even abandon
important aspects of research in a way that is detrimental to the standing
of academic researchers, the University itself, and to the broader search
for knowledge that could benefit society. As one survey respondent said,
“I can only hire research staff and buy for them supplies with which
to do research if I have funding available…without this funding, no
research work can be done, and I would be unable to contribute to my
field or to society.”
In response to these challenges, research faculty at the University
of Minnesota are coming together to advocate for adequate public
investment, reasonable caps on overhead reimbursement rates, and
transparency around how all research-related dollars are spent. Their
efforts are an integral part of a growing movement of faculty and
students across the country who seek to transform our higher education
system to one which truly values learning and inquiry.
3

METHODOLOGY
A survey was distributed by email to faculty and other academic
researchers at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities (UMN-TC)
to gather data on the experience of researchers at the University of
Minnesota. The survey was officially released on June 24, 2015.
The survey was completed by 342 academic researchers at UMN-TC.
Thirty-two percent of respondents were professors of various ranks.
Thirty-one percent of respondents were research associates, specialists,
and fellows. Twenty-four percent of respondents were post-doctoral
associates and fellows. The remainder held a variety of other academic
job titles at UMN-TC. The following analysis focuses on responses from
the UMN-TC survey, unless otherwise indicated.
FEDERAL FUNDING
IS CRITICAL TO
U OF M
RESEARCHERS
The federal government is the most significant single financial
contributor to the UMN-TC’s research operation, providing $490
million of total research funding in fiscal year 2014, or 66 percent. 1 In
fact, 26 percent of the survey respondents reported that 100 percent
of their research funding comes from the federal government, and 54
percent reported that at least half of their research funding comes from
the federal government.
Almost three out of four respondents, or 73 percent, indicated that
they receive at least some of their research funding from the federal
government, significantly more than any other source.
4

University researchers increasingly spend a significant amount of their
time chasing research grant dollars. In fact, 62 percent of respondents
responsible for applying for research funding said that the amount of
time they spend securing research funding has increased during their
career at UMN-TC.
Half of the respondents who are responsible for applying for research
funding at UMN-TC reported that they spend more than 10 percent
of their time writing grants or applying for funding. Approximately 24
percent of respondents indicated that they spend more than a quarter
of their time writing grants or applying for funding. Five percent of
respondents actually reported spending more than half of their time
writing grants and applying for funding.
FINDING 1:
RESEARCHERS
REPORT MORE TIME
SPENT APPLYING
FOR GRANTS AND
LESS SPENT ON
ACTUAL RESEARCH
It’s not surprising that respondents indicated that they spend more time
securing funding for research than they did in the past. Federal support
for university-based R&D has cratered. The proportion of the federal
budget dedicated to R&D has declined by two-thirds from 12 percent
of the total federal budget to 4 percent of the federal budget since 1965. 2
Overall R&D spending across federal agencies fell $21 billion, or 13
percent, in constant 2015 dollars from 2005 to 2015. 3 Declining federal
R&D funding forces researchers to spend more time filling out grant
applications as competition increases for an increasingly limited federal
funding pot.
Has the amount of time you dedicate to securing funding for your research changed
during your career here at the University of Minnesota?
FIGURE 1: CHANGE
IN THE AMOUNT OF
TIME DEDICATED
TO SECURING
RESEARCH
FUNDING
5

FINDING 2:
RESEARCH IS
SUFFERING AS
A RESULT OF
FEDERAL FUNDING
CHALLENGES
This difficult funding environment has a direct impact on the type of
research that is conducted and limits the value of a research project’s
impact. Fifty-one percent of survey respondents responsible for applying
for research funding reported that their ability to secure research
funding has changed the direction or specialization of their research,
and an additional 23 percent indicated that it was possible that the
direction or specialization of their research had changed as a result of
their ability to secure research funding.
Fifty-five percent of respondents responsible for applying for research
funding also reported that their ability or inability to secure funding has
limited their research’s impact in their broader field and society. Another
18 percent said that it was possible that their research’s impact had been
diminished by a lack of secure funding. As one respondent said, “There
have been good projects that I have been unable to pursue due to a lack
of funding. On different occasions, I have either needed to reduce the
scope of the project to fit with the limited resources I have, or change
my research direction to match already-funded projects so that I could
continue to do research.”
The challenges in securing adequate funding have had ripple effects
that are felt by the broader research community. Approximately 1 in 3
respondents who are not responsible for research funding said that the
ability to secure funding has or maybe has changed the direction or
specialization of research (33%) and limited their research’s impact in
their broader field/society (31%). Chart two below illustrates how both
those responsible for securing research funding and those who are not
are impacted.
FIGURE 2: IMPACTS
OF INSECURE
RESEARCH
FUNDING
Has your ability to secure research
funding changed your research
direction or specialization?
Do you feel your ability or inability
to secure research funding has
limited your impact on society or on
your field through research?
Yes
Maybe a Little
Responsible
for Funding
Not Responsible
Responsible
for Funding
Not Responsible
6

When asked if their experience matched their expectations of what a
career as an academic researcher and/or professor would be like, survey
respondents gave a variety of answers. One thing that stood out was the
fact that whether or not their experience matched their expectations,
many respondents indicated that they had not been prepared for the
amount of time that they would be required to spend chasing grants
instead of conducting research.
When asked if their experience matched their expectations, one
respondent simply responded, “No, there’s less time to do my own
research than I would have hoped.” Another respondent stated, “Yes,
for the most part. I never imagined how much work went into just
attempting to get funding. Sometimes I feel like it is almost considered
extra-curricular for postdocs like me, which makes it even more difficult
to balance work and family.” One respondent even stated that only 20
percent of their time was dedicated to the academic side of their position
and the other 80 percent was focused on tasks like grant writing and
accounting.
FINDING 3:
THE EXCESSIVE
AMOUNT OF TIME
COMPETING FOR
LIMITED FEDERAL
FUNDS IS DRIVING
SOME ACADEMIC
RESEARCHERS
FROM THE FIELD
The stress and uncertainty surrounding the grant application process
takes away from the actual work academic researchers were hired
to do. It is also enough to make at least some academic researchers
consider moving out of the research field altogether. As another survey
respondent pointed out, “We spend significantly more time now chasing
grant money and less time doing actual research. At times I’ve thought
about finding a teaching job instead. At least then I would feel that my
work was making a difference in people’s lives.”
Indeed, other respondents commented that they had already left
research, largely due to the funding situation. One respondent indicated,
“I wrote proposals in my spare time, often working 60-70 hours a
week to meet my director’s funding goals and to ensure the quality
of my research. In the end, I felt a complete lack of support from the
department where I worked as a Research Fellow.”
We spend significantly more time now
chasing grant money and less time doing
actual research. At times I've thought about
finding a teaching job instead. At least then
I would feel that my work was making a
difference in people's lives.
“
”
7

FINDING 4:
THE U OF M FAILS
TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE
SUPPORT FOR
RESEARCHERS TO
SUCCEED IN THE
FACE OF INCREASED
COMPETITION FOR
FEDERAL FUNDS
Respondents to the survey made it clear that they do not receive
adequate support from the University in all of the critical areas they
need it to effectively do their job. Just 40 percent of respondents stated
that they feel the University adequately supports and values their
research. The lack of adequate support exacerbates a challenging climate
where federal money to support university-based research is dwindling
and academic researchers must substantially increase the amount of
time they spend applying for grants in order to keep their work funded.
Academic researchers at UMN-TC pointed out in their survey
comments that University support is diminishing at the same time
that non-research duties are increasing. According to one respondent,
“University-provided support has dramatically diminished. At the same
time, the amount of administration pushed down to the level of the
principal investigator has dramatically increased.”
Further, only 40 percent said that they were given adequate time in the
workweek to complete the expectations of their job. Several respondents
report extreme workweeks, including working 7 days a week, in excess
of 60 hours a week, and/or nights and weekends to complete the
expectations of their job.
Only 41 percent of respondents reported that they had enough educated
and trained staff to perform their research at the desired capacity. This
is not necessarily due only to the decisions of the University; it can
also reflect the lack of overall public investment need to attract and
retain qualified talent. Although most respondents indicated that the
University has provided adequate resources, including materials and lab
space, challenges can be extreme for the minority of respondents who
stated that they experience inadequate lab space.
One respondent stated, “I’m working in obsolete facilities that affect my
productivity. Any upgrades or repairs are apparently my responsibility
to get funding to fix. It’s embarrassing to bring in industry partners and
then for them to see the poor condition of our labs.” Other respondents
spoke of mice-ridden labs or having to traverse across the parking lot
from the lab to a break room closet in another building in order to
obtain lab-quality water.
I’m working in obsolete facilities that affect
my productivity. Any upgrades or repairs are
apparently my responsibility to get funding to fix. It’s
embarrassing to bring in industry partners and then
for them to see the poor condition of our labs.
“
”
8

The challenges associated with spending increasing amounts of time
chasing limited grant funding have been exacerbated by an increase in
the proportions of these funds now diverted to overhead reimbursement
rates rather than direct research support.
Overhead rates are the mechanism used to reimburse universities for
the facilities and administrative costs they incur leading up to and while
conducting federally funded research. Just 14 percent of respondents
said they feel there is transparency in how overhead rates (facilities
and administrative charges) are used at the University. One in two
respondents said that UMN-TC was not transparent in how overhead
rates are used. One respondent stated that, “The University is not
transparent and it is biased toward making money rather than advancing
good science.”
FINDING 5:
THE U OF M IS
NOT SEEN AS
TRANSPARENT
ON THE ISSUE
OF OVERHEAD
CHARGES
A lack of transparency about how overhead rates are spent at the
University is of great concern to researchers because these funds
could otherwise fund direct research, and if they are not being spent
appropriately on research-related overhead expenses, then a strong case
can be made that it should be redirected to the academic researchers and
their labs. As one researcher stated, “I think a campaign to direct more
U resources to faculty control and less to administrative bloat would be
useful. More money for internal grant competitions or just for individual
research accounts, less for administrative salaries and expenses. Let the
faculty hire research staff.”
Do you feel there is transparency in how facilities and administrative (F&A, indirect,
overhead) charges are used at the University?
FIGURE 3:
TRANSPARENCY
IN USE OF
FACILITIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
CHARGES
9

THE PATH FORWARD
University of Minnesota academic researchers see a path forward
through collective action. Less than one in four respondents, or 22
percent, stated that they felt like UMN-TC does enough to advocate
for or otherwise support increased funding at the state or federal levels,
and just one in ten respondents stated that they felt like UMN-TC does
enough to advocate for increased funding at both the state and national
levels. The fact that so few respondents feel UMN-TC does enough
to advocate for increased funding is understandable: no single higher
education institution in this country can carry the burden of reversing
decades of declining public support by itself. Earlier this year, despite a
state budget surplus in the hundreds of millions of dollars, University
administrators were unable to persuade the legislature to fully fund their
proposed budget.
Faculty and other academic researchers coming together at UMN-
TC and at other research universities across the country can build the
collective power to tackle this issue. Fortunately, UMN-TC’s faculty
and academic researchers are up to the challenge. When asked if
they see a role for a unified UMN-TC faculty voice in advocating for
increased state and national funding for academic research, a majority of
respondents said yes. Based on the results of this survey and the growing
desire to stand together and affect change, we recommend the following
reforms to improve university-based research:
10
1. Greater Public
Investment
2. A Cap on
Overhead Expenses
1. Advocate for increased public investment. Federal and state
governments must increase funding earmarked for university-based
research and development. As mentioned above, since 1965, the
proportion of total federal budget outlays dedicated to research has
declined by two-thirds from 12 percent of the total federal budget
to 4 percent of the federal budget. 4 This trend must be reversed.
Institutional support from the university itself does not adequately
fill the gap, and even if it could, the cost would likely be passed
on to students in the form of increased tuition and fees. Likewise,
private investment from corporations and foundations, which often
comes with heightened expectations of applied or commercially
motivated research results, is no replacement for public money, and
can have the effect of narrowing the field of scientific inquiry where
it replaces public funds. Robust public investment is necessary to
adequately support the research missions of our nation’s top research
universities.
2. Call for a cap on funds for overhead and other non-core expenses.
Overhead rates have increased from an 8 percent cap in the 1950s
to an average negotiated rate of 53 percent in FY 2013. 5 The highest
individually negotiated overhead rate from FY 2013 is 103 percent. 6
UMN-TC’s overhead rate from FY 2013 is 52 percent, close to the
average. 7 While overhead rates are necessary and are intended to
reimburse reasonable facilities and administration costs, they are
often excessive and take away funds that could otherwise be allotted
directly to funding core research. A cap on overhead rates should be

introduced that takes into account the needs of research universities
in the 21st century and is substantially below the current average
negotiated rate of 53 percent. Any savings should be reinvested
directly into funds for university-based research.
3. Advocate for increased transparency in funding and university
governance. As mentioned above, only 14 percent of respondents
said they felt there was transparency in how overhead charges
were used at UMN-TC. Others wrote in their comments that there
appears to be a bias toward funding projects that make money rather
than simply those with the most merit. To achieve transparency
and improve decision-making, the university must establish shared
governance that gives research faculty a real voice in shaping the
direction of the university’s research priorities and spending.
4. Reject politically imposed limits on publicly funded research.
Increasingly, political discussions around research funding have been
disrupted by ideological controversy surrounding topics like climate
change, stem cell research, and evolution. The entire university
community – faculty, researchers, students, administrators, and
funders – must stand together to defend the intellectual freedom to
pursue scientific inquiry without political interference.
5. Call for Congress to end sequestration cuts. The self-imposed
budget gridlock in Washington, DC impacts far more than just
research, but it has constrained Congress’ ability to act on our
national research needs. To stay under budget caps this year, research
funding increases came partially at the expense of need-based
student grants and federal work-study – an impossible choice that
likely reduces institutional resources elsewhere and negates the
impact of the funding. 8 University researchers must join the growing
list of Americans calling on Congress to negotiate a real budget in
good faith, without the constraints of caps and sequestration.
3. Increased
Transparency
4. Reject Ideological
Limits on Research
5. End the Budget
Sequester
Joining together in a movement with faculty and other academic
researchers has the potential to win improvements to research working
conditions and unlock increased public financing of university-based
research. That’s why many faculty at the University of Minnesota are
seeking to form a faculty union. Building an organization of faculty in
Minnesota, as many have done elsewhere, is a great first step toward
creating a movement of academics to improve our nation’s universitybased
research and ensure that the United States once again leads
the way globally in new technologies and medical and scientific
breakthroughs.
11

ENDNOTES
1. Herman, Brian, Vice President for Research. Annual Report: The
Status of University Research and Commercialization of Intellectual
Property: Five Years Forward, University of Minnesota, December 12,
2014. http://www.research.umn.edu/documents/2014Report.pdf.
2. Historical Trends in Federal R&D: R&D as a Percent of the
Total Federal Budget, 1962-2016, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Updated May 2015. http://www.aaas.org/
page/historical-trends-federal-rd. In 1965, approximately 6 percent
of the federal budget was nondefense R&D. Now that figure stands at
just 2 percent.
3. Historical Trends in Federal R&D: Total R&D by Agency 1976-2016,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Updated
May 2015. http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd.
4. Historical Trends in Federal R&D: R&D as a Percent of the
Total Federal Budget, 1962-2016, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Updated May 2015. http://www.aaas.org/
page/historical-trends-federal-rd.
5. Ledford, Heidi, “Indirect Costs: Keeping the Lights On,” Nature,
November 19, 2014. pg. 329
6. ibid, pg. 327
7. ibid, online version. http://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costskeeping-the-lights-on-1.16376.
8. FY16 LHHS Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary. June 23, 2015.
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/minority/fy16-lhhssubcommittee-markup-bill-summary.
12

Survey: The State of Research at the U of MN
Scarcity of funding and increased pressure on faculty and researchers
at the University of Minnesota have often forced us to make difficult
decisions, such as limiting, changing or even abandoning aspects of our
research or working longer hours and making sacrifices that impact our
work-life balance. This often is detrimental to professional standing, our
expectations, our University and to the search for knowledge that could
benefit society. That’s why we’ve put together a survey to gain insight
into how these critical issues impact our work.
APPENDIX A:
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Please describe your thoughts and experiences on the current state of
research funding and how it is impacting you and the University. This
survey should only take 5 to 10 minutes to complete. All information you
provide will be treated as confidential. Your responses will be combined
with those of other respondents and reported anonymously and in the
aggregate. Your email and contact information will not be shared.
SECTION 1: Funding
What percentage of your research funding comes from each of these
sources? (please fill a percentage for each. Your answers should total
100%):
• Federal Government Sources
• State Government Sources
• Local / Regional Government Sources
• University of Minnesota
• Private Foundations
• Industry
• Other Sources (please describe)
What percentage of your time do you spend writing grants or applying
for funding?
• None. I'm not responsible for research funding
• Less than 5%
• 5% to 10%
• 11% to 25%
• 26% to 50%
• 51% to 75%
• More than 75%
• I don't know
Has the amount of time you dedicate to securing funding for your
research changed during your career here at the University of
Minnesota?
• Yes, it has increased
• Yes, it has decreased
• No, it has stayed the same
• I'm not sure / I don't know
13

Has your ability to secure research funding changed
your research direction or specialization?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe a little
• I'm not sure / I don't know
Do you feel your ability or inability to secure research
funding has limited your impact on society or on
your field through research?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe a little
• I'm not sure / I don't know
Please provide details for the above questions:
SECTION 2: Support
Do you feel that the University adequately supports
and values your research?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
Do you have adequate materials for your work,
including available and accessible lab space?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
Do you have adequate time in the work-week to
complete what is expected from you at work?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
Do you feel there is transparency in how facilities and
administrative (F&A, indirect, overhead) charges are
used at the University?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
SECTION 3: Advocacy & Intellectual
Property
Do you feel that the University of Minnesota does
enough to advocate or otherwise support increased
funding for your research area at the state and at the
national levels?
• Yes, both state and national
• Yes, but mostly within the state
• Yes, but focus is mostly federal
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
Do you see a role for a unified University of
Minnesota faculty voice in advocating for increased
state and national funding for academic research?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
Please provide details:
At the completion of your research, who owns patents
and intellectual property that result from your work?
• I own it.
• The Principal Investigator (PI) who supervises my
work owns it.
• The University owns it.
• A private third party owns it.
• It depends on the source of funding.
• Nobody owns it. It is open source or in the public
domain.
• Other
Has intellectual property ownership ever restricted or
limited the circulation or impact of your research?
• Yes
• No
• Maybe
• I’m not sure / I don’t know
Please provide details:
Please provide details for the above questions:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•