|
| 6. CONCLUSION |
| The purpose of this review is to better
understand the government-university partnership in research and associated educational
activities, and to identify issues requiring action or further study. No review or set of
actions is likely to identify all relevant issues or anticipate all future issues. The
government-university partnership is too dynamic and involves too many participants to
allow for such an outcome. Since at best such an exercise can provide a snapshot of the
partnership at any given time, a mechanism or mechanisms should be established to provide
for continuing review and assessment by universities, the Federal government, and other
interested parties, so that issues may be addressed as they arise. This will help support
and strengthen the partnership so that it can continue to promote mutual goals.
ACTION: Establish Task Force to Provide for
Continuing Dialogue and
Review |
- The NSTC will establish a standing interagency working group
under the auspices of the Committee on Science dedicated to continuing review and
assessment of the government-university partnership. The NSTC urges the President’s
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology to consider the establishment of a panel
for the same purpose, to consult with universities and other interested parties, and to
provide advice to the President and the NSTC on the government-university partnership.
These entities would complement the activities of already existing organizations, such as
the Federal Demonstration Partnership, the Government-University-Industry Research
Roundtable, and the National Science Board. Potential areas meriting further review
include the following: the process for assigning intellectual property rights in the case
of university-industry-government research collaborations; identification of best
practices of individual universities or Federal agencies that could be disseminated for
broader use to improve the partnership; resources required to meet the terms of the OMB
advisory that requires grantee mission-critical systems to be Y2K—or year
2000—compliant. Other topics will be identified and assessed as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
