Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/80303
WINEMAKING get. (The overhead charge is pretty standard in university-based research, public or private.) On the issue of relevance in research, it's true that in the coun- tries with much more robust wine research efforts, researchers and industry representatives are probably more closely intertwined than in the U.S. configuration. The AWRI has its research agenda set, in a general way, through industry priorities; within those pri- orities, a lot of very basic science gets done without the require- ment that every experiment pay off in an immediate production context. The French model also shows a much stronger symbiosis between industry firms (yeast suppliers, for example) and univer- sity research projects (on, for example, yeast strain genetics.) The Davis model (and the primary model at U.S. research uni- versities) is somewhat more researcher-centric. Researchers try to pursue what they and their field deem important, and though they go to industry for funding assistance, industry does not call all the shots. Research findings must be made public (journal articles, etc.), not kept proprietary, though funding sources gen- erally get the first right to use findings for commercialization. You can argue, and many do, that this "wall of separation" is es- sential for intellectual and academic integrity—and in particular that public institutions have a responsibility to make their find- ings known to the public. You might also observe that the dairy industry, for example, is apparently content to operate under these rules. At another extreme, imagine a different model for wine re- search, one closer to the way that, say, the Stanford University engineering departments and faculty are woven into the corporate structure of Silicon Valley, and vice versa. Faculty members are also investors in start-ups that use technology their grad students bw.7.625x4.875.pdf 11/25/08 9:49:55 AM helped develop, and one result is plenty of millionaire assistant professors. Many on the campus are alarmed at this high-rolling direction for a great university, but there is no doubt that industry funding for research is readily available. (Thanks to Jim Kennedy for pointing me to a recent New Yorker article about this.) Imagine what life would be like if the average viticultural re- searcher at Oregon State was rewarded with Pinot futures in the Willamette Valley and ended up rolling in money. Or if David Mills got a zillion dollars from the Napa Vintners Association, but only on the condition he limit himself to looking at the DNA from Cabernet grapes and no other varieties and that he would cer- tify that Napa grapes have better genes than Sonoma grapes. Not likely to happen, but then again, wouldn't these be nicer problems to have than the problem of not nearly enough research? Short of that fantasy world, it's apparent that many of the uni- versity-based research programs—most of all Davis—have miles to go in explaining themselves and the value of what they do to many people in the industry. This is one of several places in which the decimation of extension programs has made it harder for aca- demics and farmers to get into the same room, let alone onto the same page. Even generous industry supporters of research at Da- vis find the department unusually insular and remote, more so than many other similar programs. Simply berating the industry for not giving enough is unlikely to pay rewards; there is no indication that grants to Davis have increased in the wake of Boulton's talk. If the industry has a ten- dency to see the proper relationship between research and produc- tion as unduly direct and immediate, Davis has at least created the impression that it sees the relation as largely theoretical. It's a good sign that a new staff position in the Department of Viticul- C M Y CM MY CY CMY K WINES & VINES SEPTEMBER 2012 69