Public research universities have an important societal mission and that is to help ameliorate the societal and economic conditions of the taxpayers who pay their bills. It is a major activity engaged by the faculty, staff, and students as a part of their research, service, and teaching missions within a university. This role requires that the researchers compete effectively for research dollars, both public and private. Public research dollars come mainly from the federal government that provide both basic and applied research funds. However, most of the developmental funds are provided by the industry. Private foundations support mainly fundamental research especially in the areas of medical and technological advances. In the United States, $456 billion has been spent in both research and development efforts in 2014. Of these 18% is basic, 20% applied and 62% developmental. All of the basic funds are provided by the federal agencies and so is a small portion of the applied funds. However, all of the developmental and a large portion of the applied funds are provided by industry and private sources. The universities are capable of competing very well for the basic and applied funds, but have been much effective in competing for developmental funds. The unfortunate reality of years of economic downturn and sequestration efforts has been to slowly wilt away the funds available for basic research. Today the U.S. government spends only 2.3% of its GDP for research, which places it 10^th among the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations of the world. Industry has also stopped supporting basic research (otherwise called “blue-sky” research) in favor of only “goal-oriented, development” research. They have divested themselves of research for research-sake and shuttered most of the well-known laboratories and relying more on university basic research to power the innovations. With reduced federal support the universities are ill equipped to fill that void for the industry. We are thus at crossroads with diminished support for fundamental research and increased need for innovation to maintain our scientific enterprise. Thus, the pre-eminence that the country had enjoyed in scientific research is starting to be challenged. Business as usual in research universities is no longer feasible; they have to re-invent themselves to adapt to the modern reality. What can these universities do?

The research staff at any land-grant, public university has the mission of being of service to the society at large. This translates directly to the ability to do research on three different scales to benefit the society. They can work on local problems, national security interests and global issues. On all of these scales, problems can vary from scientific or technological to social issues as well as the creative arts. The existence and promotion of academic freedom allows faculty and staff to engage in any form of investigation and discovery that pertains to the issues at hand.

In order for modern public research universities to be strategic in its investments and establishing priorities, one has to accept a new paradigm, viz., setting oneself apart from the pack and ensuring that there is enough bench depth to assure success within progressively diminishing resources. The new paradigm for setting priorities must be based on a few core principles:

• Indeed any public research university should be aware of its primary mission to be that of working on problems that benefit the society at large.
• Advancing the science and liberal arts should be a primary driver, even in the face of adverse reactions to “knowledge for knowledge-sake” without any likelihood of immediate tangible benefits being apparent.
• Universities should evaluate their existing strengths and then develop a sound long-term strategic plan instead of limited 5 to 10-year plans that are the current norm.
• Faculty, and not the administration should dominate the setting up of these strategic plans and priorities; however, frequent consultation between the two groups should lead to strategic revisions when needed.
• Many different processes can be employed to develop strategic objectives such as, for example:
  • Focus on Grand Challenges that are global in scope.
  • Focus on trans-disciplinary research programs.
  • Focus on cluster hiring faculty and staff to support these initiatives.
  • Focus on economic development at the core of all initiatives.
• Universities should also focus on contextual problems, viz., those that are probably only relevant in the local or regional interest in the immediate future.
• Universities should band together on regional scales to share large scale, expensive equipment that are necessary for teamwork.
• Universities should resist the implementation of burdensome regulatory compliance requirements and allow more time for researchers to spend on their creative endeavors.
• A heavy focus should be placed on providing the necessary climate so that the young researchers will stay for a longer time to execute strategic priorities and not necessarily find greener pastures elsewhere.
• Current resource limitations should not be contemplated in a strategic plan that envisages long-term growth. Resources should be allocated later based on the strategic vision.